# Gec entering enclosure



## ElectricalArtist

Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


----------



## HackWork

Kenny clamps shouldn't be used because they are throwing away a lot of profit.

I typically use the little hole that many new panels have in some of the KO's. But I will also use a button connector or 2-screw connector if necessary.


----------



## Dark Knight

What's a Kenny Clamp?


----------



## drspec

I'll use the small hole in the bottom of the can....if that's taken up (when I'm bonding gas meter) I'll use a unibit to make my own.


----------



## manchestersparky

As far as the Kenny clamp , There are less expensive listed products on the market. Arlington Industries makes 2 and I believe Bridgeport makes one.

NM connectors are not listed for a single conductor. They are only listed for type NM cable. that's the issue with using NM connectors for the GEC.


----------



## matt1124

Dark Knight said:


> What's a Kenny Clamp?


Kenny clamp


----------



## chicken steve

manchestersparky said:


> NM connectors are not listed for a single conductor. They are only listed for type NM cable. that's the issue with using NM connectors for the GEC.


_<crap>_, 30 odd years ,and i just realizing i'm doing it _wrong_...









~CS~


----------



## Navyguy

manchestersparky said:


> NM connectors are not listed for a single conductor. They are only listed for type NM cable. that's the issue with using NM connectors for the GEC.


It is posts like this that really get me thinking about stuff that we have done for years and have never really thought about it. We cannot just drill a hole in a meter socket or panel; stick the wire in and tie it in. Did that a few times over the years and the inspector stated without hesitation that you must use a connector when entering a cabinet or box… so off we go using a plastic or two-screw connector… and the world continues to spin effortlessly…

Then someone comes along with the simplest response like, the plastic or two-screw connector is not “approved for use” with a single conductor… and they are absolutely right! Then I think, why the heck did I not even think about that?… I just merrily going about my business using these non-compliant connectors all these years and never once did it occur to me…

Thanks! Now I am not going to sleep tonight… this is almost the same as using flush mount covers on a surface mount box… My historical defects are starting to pile up! I might have to change my screen name to The_Hacker or something…

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> We cannot just drill a hole in a meter socket or panel; stick the wire in and tie it in.


 Why not? 

Many panels have a small hole for that purpose. And there is nothing stopping us from making our own holes.

The GEC is different than everything else. Support, burial depth, etc.


----------



## flyboy

manchestersparky said:


> As far as the Kenny clamp , There are less expensive listed products on the market. Arlington Industries makes 2 and I believe Bridgeport makes one.
> 
> *NM connectors are not listed for a single conductor.* They are only listed for type NM cable. that's the issue with using NM connectors for the GEC.


Uh oh...I have about 12 million of them out there in that application. :whistling2:


----------



## flyboy

HackWork said:


> Why not?
> 
> Many panels have a small hole for that purpose. *And there is nothing stopping us from making our own holes.*
> 
> The GEC is different than everything else. Support, burial depth, etc.


Busted! I'll be alerting all the inspectors in your area first thing tomorrow morning that you are altering the UL listed equipment by drilling a hole in it. A clear and present danger and obvious NEC code violation.


----------



## telsa

Per the NEC, the GEC has to be BONDED when it passes through a ferrous enclosure.

This was detailed - by me - in a thread less than two-weeks ago.

And, you can't bond with plastic.

Two-screw Romex// MC connectors are NOT listed for this application, BTW.

I know, I know, they are commonly thrown at the 'problem.'

&&&

But hey, as long as your AHJ is letting you get by... why obey the NEC ?

The danger created only erupts when fault conditions fire off, anyway.

Until then, everything works perfectly.

Hey, that's the same logic as every DIY// handy man out there.


----------



## splatz

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Madison...stem-Bonding-Bridge-Connector-MEIBB/204754824


----------



## HackWork

flyboy said:


> Busted! I'll be alerting all the inspectors in your area first thing tomorrow morning that you are altering the UL listed equipment by drilling a hole in it. A clear and present danger and obvious NEC code violation.


I told you I was hardcore.


----------



## HackWork

telsa said:


> Per the NEC, the GEC has to be BONDED when it passes through a ferrous enclosure.


 Post that article.



> This was detailed - by me - in a thread less than two-weeks ago.


 Link?



> But hey, as long as your AHJ is letting you get by... why obey the NEC ?


 We are abiding by the NEC, which does not require the GEC to be bonded as it enters an enclosure. The only thing even remotely close to what you are saying is that the GEC needs to be "choked" as it enters and exits a metal raceway. 


> Hey, that's the same logic as every DIY// handy man out there.


No, your logic of saying things are required without citing the code is what handymen do.

I'm getting fed up with people throwing out so-called code requirements without being able to show us where the code requires it. Next I am going to start handing out smacks.


----------



## Roger

ElectricalArtist said:


> Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


No, using any of those is a waste of money, effort, and natural resources, run it though one of the factory supplied holes or drill your own and land it in a lug bonded to the enclosure. 

Roger


----------



## HackWork

Roger said:


> No, using any of those is a waste of money, effort, and natural resources, run it though one of the factory supplied holes or drill your own *and land it in a lug bonded to the enclosure*.
> 
> Roger


The GEC has to land on the neutral bar. 

The exception is that you can land it on the ground bar if the main bonding jumper is an appropriately sized wire or busbar. 

Landing the GEC to a lug bonded to the metal enclosure when the main bonding jumper is just a screw is not compliant.


----------



## mdnitedrftr

http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/g...ation-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50

$3 a pop.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

That code is talking about terminations of gec . 250.24 .4


----------



## Roger

HackWork said:


> The GEC has to land on the neutral bar.
> 
> The exception is that you can land it on the ground bar if the main bonding jumper is an appropriately sized wire or busbar.
> 
> Landing the GEC to a lug bonded to the metal enclosure when the main bonding jumper is just a screw is not compliant.


My post is relating to this connection being made in the meter can which is the norm in the Southeast. The lug I'm referring to is the factory supplied Neutral bar in the meter can which has provisions for the GEC along with the line and load side neutrals and is factory bonded to the enclosure.

If that is not available, I agree that you would need to make the connection in the Main service equipment and that would be on the neutral bar or combination lug. 

IOW's, we are on the same page.

Roger


----------



## HackWork

Roger said:


> My post is relating to this connection being made in the meter can which is the norm in the Southeast.
> 
> The lug I'm referring to is the factory supplied Neutral bar in the meter can which has provisions for the GEC along with the line and load side neutrals and is factory bonded to the enclosure.
> 
> If that is not available, I agree that you would need to make the connection in the Main service equipment and that would be on the neutral bar or combination lug.
> 
> IOW's, we are on the same page.
> 
> Roger


Gotcha, I was speaking about the panel. I know in some areas you can bring the GEC into the meter pan like you said.


----------



## HackWork

mdnitedrftr said:


> http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/g...ation-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50
> 
> $3 a pop.


That's like $1,200 in my pocket by not using that nonsense. :laughing::thumbup:


----------



## telsa

HackWork said:


> Post that article.
> 
> Link?
> 
> We are abiding by the NEC, which does not require the GEC to be bonded as it enters an enclosure. The only thing even remotely close to what you are saying is that the GEC needs to be "choked" as it enters and exits a metal raceway.
> 
> No, your logic of saying things are required without citing the code is what handymen do.
> 
> I'm getting fed up with people throwing out so-called code requirements without being able to show us where the code requires it. Next I am going to start handing out smacks.


I posted it less than two-weeks ago.

I'm not your Web clerk.


----------



## HackWork

telsa said:


> I posted it less than two-weeks ago.
> 
> I'm not your Web clerk.


No, what you are is someone who just made a completely wrong code statement and isn't willing to back it up with code, because you can't.

I'm not searching thru all of your posts to find something that isn't true.

Post the code or admit you are wrong. I can't believe you are literally pulling a chicken steve here.


----------



## Roger

ElectricalArtist said:


> That article section is talking about terminations of gec . 250.24 .4


That is referrng to the connection to the Grounded Conductor (neutral) and to the equipment, not the GEC entering the equipment.

Roger


----------



## flyboy

HackWork said:


> I told you I was hardcore.


I missed the core part.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

250.24 Grounding Service-Supplied Alternating-Current Systems.
(A) System Grounding Connections. A premises wiring system supplied by a grounded ac service shall have a grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded service conductor, at each service, in accordance with 250.24(A)(1) through (A)(5).

Thats saying the gec has to be connected to the nuetral in accordence with A 1 to A5 A 4 says 

(4) Main Bonding Jumper as Wire or Busbar. Where the main bonding jumper specified in 250.28 is a wire or busbar and is installed from the grounded conductor terminal bar or bus to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment, the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal, bar, or bus to which the main bonding jumper is connected.

They are talking about a termination of the gec to enclosure . If the neutral is connected to the ground bar by wire or bus then we can terminate at the enclosure. Does this mean we can or can not use the kenny clamp. Becuase if we are making a connection to a fitting bonded to the enclosure with just a screw as a mbj then it would be non compliant like hack said but if 250.24A4 is just talking about the termination of the gec it would be compliant


----------



## Roger

ElectricalArtist said:


> (4)
> 
> They are talking about a termination of the gec to enclosure . If the neutral is connected to the ground bar by wire or bus then we can terminate at the enclosure. Does this mean we can or can not use the kenny clamp.


You can use it or any expensive POS you choose to, it's just not neccessary.



ElectricalArtist said:


> if we are making a connection to a fitting bonded to the enclosure with just a screw as a mbj then it would be non compliant like hack said


But that is not what we are talking about, read my follow up post to what Hax questioned.

Roger


----------



## telsa

HackWork said:


> No, what you are is someone who just made a completely wrong code statement and isn't willing to back it up with code, because you can't.
> 
> I'm not searching thru all of your posts to find something that isn't true.
> 
> Post the code or admit you are wrong. I can't believe you are literally pulling a chicken steve here.


But, I already have.

BTW, the very reason these gadgets even exist is because of the NEC demands.

Without the NEC insistence, no-one would manufacture them, as they are a compelled buy.

Yup.

There is NO chance that you win on this one.

That your AHJ has been lax for Hax... I'll grant you that one.

BTW, the rest of the crew remembers the citation. 

Ain't that tough ?


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist said:


> 250.24 Grounding Service-Supplied Alternating-Current Systems.
> (A) System Grounding Connections. A premises wiring system supplied by a grounded ac service shall have a grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded service conductor, at each service, in accordance with 250.24(A)(1) through (A)(5).
> 
> Thats saying the gec has to be connected to the nuetral in accordence with A 1 to A5 A 4 says
> 
> (4) Main Bonding Jumper as Wire or Busbar. Where the main bonding jumper specified in 250.28 is a wire or busbar and is installed from the grounded conductor terminal bar or bus to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment, the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal, bar, or bus to which the main bonding jumper is connected.
> 
> They are talking about a termination of the gec to enclosure . If the neutral is connected to the ground bar by wire or bus then we can terminate at the enclosure. Does this mean we can or can not use the kenny clamp. Becuase if we are making a connection to a fitting bonded to the enclosure with just a screw as a mbj then it would be non compliant like hack said but if 250.24A4 is just talking about the termination of the gec it would be compliant


Even when using the Kenny Clamp, you would still connect the GEC to the neutral bar. The Kenny Clamp is just a way to choke the GEC as it enters.


----------



## HackWork

telsa said:


> But, I already have.


 No, you did not. You refuse to post the code, because you can't find it.



> BTW, the very reason these gadgets even exist is because of the NEC demands.


 No, the gadget exists because the company wants to make a profit. It is well known across every electrical community that the Kenny Clamp is not required in the instance that we are discussing.



> There is NO chance that you win on this one.


 THis isn't win or lose. EVERYONE has lost here because yet another dunce posted an incorrect code statement that they won't backup. You are giving bad information. 

The GEC can be run thru a hole in the panel. You haven't posted anything to refute that. Everyone here knows it except for you.



> That your AHJ has been lax for Hax... I'll grant you that one.


That you are completely misinformed and not willing to post a simple code article... I'll grant you that one.

What kind of person would argue against everyone saying that code requires something, without posting the code article??? Telsa and chicken steve, that's who.


----------



## HackWork

Your edit:


telsa said:


> BTW, the rest of the crew remembers the citation.
> 
> Ain't that tough ?


No, no one here knows what you are talking about.

You can run the GEC thru a hole in the panel, some manufacturers even call it the GEC hole.

You haven't post a code article to the contrary.


----------



## Roger

telsa said:


> BTW, the very reason these gadgets even exist is because of the NEC demands.


No, the NEC doesn't demand or even require it, it's simply the fact that some manufacturer sees an opportunity to produce something and use smoke and mirrors to make it appear that is required.

Roger


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Post that article.
> 
> Link?
> 
> We are abiding by the NEC, which does not require the GEC to be bonded as it enters an enclosure. The only thing even remotely close to what you are saying is that the GEC needs to be "choked" as it enters and exits a metal raceway.
> 
> No, your logic of saying things are required without citing the code is what handymen do.
> 
> I'm getting fed up with people throwing out so-called code requirements without being able to show us where the code requires it. Next I am going to start handing out smacks.


Your going to_ start_handing out smacks?:laughing:


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist, sorry for getting uppity in your thread, but I absolutely *hate* when someone gives incorrect code advice, which could negatively affect people in real life, and refuse to substantiate it with code.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Your going to_ start_handing out smacks?:laughing:


I meant snacks, snacks! 


I could go for some popcorn right now :thumbup:


----------



## ElectricalArtist

I dont mind as long as we get the right info. Im actually watching the mike holt dvd i believe he covers this i just dont remember where on the dvd.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Even when using the Kenny Clamp, you would still connect the GEC to the neutral bar. The Kenny Clamp is just a way to choke the GEC as it enters.


What does it mean to "choke" the GEC...stabalize?
this is a new term for me


----------



## HackWork

Just to be sure that I wasn't giving bad info, I went to Mike Holt's and confirmed what I said, that the GEC doesn't require any bonding as it enters the panel.

Some people might be confused by 250.64(E) because it is talking about "enclosures", but it is specifically talking about "Enclosures *for* Grounding Electrode Conductors". It doesn't apply to panels that the GEC merely enters.

Here is the proof:


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> What does it mean to "choke" the GEC...stabalize?
> this is a new term for me


I will let smarter people than me explain it: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=61271

If you run a GEC thru a metal raceway, you need to "choke" it on each end, which is essentially bonding it to the raceway on each end.


----------



## Navyguy

HackWork said:


> Why not?
> 
> Many panels have a small hole for that purpose. And there is nothing stopping us from making our own holes.
> 
> The GEC is different than everything else. Support, burial depth, etc.


I am pretty sure the "small hole" you are referring to is the one to recess mount the panel... I don't recall seeing any other "small holes" in the panel. While I agree that I could make my own "small hole", I would still need to use a connector in accordance with the inspector direction and I am sure it is related to rule 12-3022 (1)(b).

Cheers
John


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I will let smarter people than me explain it: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=61271
> 
> If you run a GEC thru a metal raceway, you need to "choke" it on each end, which is essentially bonding it to the raceway on each end.


That seems to me to be a "grounding bushing"....

I have always used threaded grounding bushings on emt or
rmc or even fmc...also , would ground metal pull boxes &
pass gec through a lug there , but I must say , I never
heard of amplified conductivity in ferrous metals. Thanx.


----------



## lighterup

Navyguy said:


> I am pretty sure the "small hole" you are referring to is the one to recess mount the panel... I don't recall seeing any other "small holes" in the panel. While I agree that I could make my own "small hole", I would still need to use a connector in accordance with the inspector direction and I am sure it is related to rule 12-3022 (1)(b).
> 
> Cheers
> John


John , there are usually (2) on the top and (2) on the bottom
of most pre-punched panels. These ones are about 1/4" to 3/8"
in diameter and are also found to the right & left of the center
top & bottom knock outs . I use them for the GEC too and have
never been told any different


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> I am pretty sure the "small hole" you are referring to is the one to recess mount the panel... I don't recall seeing any other "small holes" in the panel. While I agree that I could make my own "small hole", I would still need to use a connector in accordance with the inspector direction and I am sure it is related to rule 12-3022 (1)(b).
> 
> Cheers
> John


Maybe it's different up there. I can't find any pictures, but many brands of panels have a small hole in various places. Sometimes it inside of a 1/2" KO, sometimes it's int he back corner of the panel. There is usually a couple on top and a couple on the bottom of the panel. Siemens calls it the GEC hole.

Here's a pic:


----------



## sbrn33

I have been doing this a long time and have never used a "kenny clamp". 
So tesla is telling me that 30 or 40 inspectors over the years have been wrong??


----------



## Navyguy

lighterup said:


> John , there are usually (2) on the top and (2) on the bottom
> of most pre-punched panels. These ones are about 1/4" to 3/8"
> in diameter and are also found to the right & left of the center
> top & bottom knock outs . I use them for the GEC too and have
> never been told any different


I think our panels are different. I have never seen a small KO in our panels and don't forget in Canada our panels have a separated Service Entrance area and in fact there are very few KO's in that section.

Cheers

John


----------



## telsa

sbrn33 said:


> I have been doing this a long time and have never used a "kenny clamp".
> So tesla is telling me that 30 or 40 inspectors over the years have been wrong??


You crazy, there are a NUMBER of devices oriented towards meeting the NEC provisions.

I've never used a Kenny clamp, ever.


----------



## telsa

sbrn33 said:


> I have been doing this a long time and have never used a "kenny clamp".
> So tesla is telling me that 30 or 40 inspectors over the years have been wrong??


BTW, don't assume that your AHJ knows their business.

I thought that was well established fact here at ET.


----------



## telsa

lighterup said:


> That seems to me to be a "grounding bushing"....
> 
> I have always used threaded grounding bushings on emt or
> rmc or even fmc...also , would ground metal pull boxes &
> pass gec through a lug there , but I must say , I never
> heard of amplified conductivity in ferrous metals. Thanx.


You've got everything BACKWARDS.

Ferrous barriers create what EE's refer to as a 'choke.'

This only becomes a hazard under FAULT conditions.

Until then, your work is as decent as any handy man's -- any hack -- any DIY.

'Cause it will work.

The nightmare only erupts when a voltage spike hits.

*MY* AHJ look for such bonding bushings -- like they are Easter Eggs.

They are high on their punch list.

That status rather shocked me. 

I knew about the provision -- but didn't expect the AHJ to be all over it like a wet rag.


----------



## lighterup

telsa said:


> BTW, don't assume that your AHJ knows their business.
> 
> I thought that was well established fact here at ET.



Telsa

Do you know the knock outs we are referring to?
They are generally 1/4" to 3/8" in diameter .

If they are not for the GEC to pass thru , what other use 
would they be there for?


----------



## lighterup

telsa said:


> You've got everything BACKWARDS.
> 
> Ferrous barriers create what EE's refer to as a 'choke.'
> 
> This only becomes a hazard under FAULT conditions.
> 
> Until then, your work is as decent as any handy man's -- any hack -- any DIY.
> 
> 'Cause it will work.
> 
> The nightmare only erupts when a voltage spike hits.
> 
> *MY* AHJ look for such bonding bushings -- like they are Easter Eggs.
> 
> They are high on their punch list.
> 
> That status rather shocked me.
> 
> I knew about the provision -- but didn't expect the AHJ to be all over it like a wet rag.


Your losing me bro. What's "backwards" about using grounding lugs & bushings?

PS My AHJ expects us to use them as well


----------



## HackWork

telsa = chicken steve


----------



## manchestersparky

HackWork said:


> I will let smarter people than me explain it: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=61271
> 
> If you run a GEC thru a metal raceway, you need to "choke" it on each end, which is essentially bonding it to the raceway on each end.


250.64(E)

(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. 

(1) General. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path. Nonferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.


----------



## HackWork

manchestersparky said:


> 250.64(E)
> 
> (E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors.
> 
> (1) General. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path. Nonferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.


I posted about that article in post #39. That is not talking about a GEC entering a panel, it is talking about an enclosure for a GEC like this:


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> I posted about that article in post #39. That is not talking about a GEC entering a panel, it is talking about an enclosure for a GEC like this:


Unless you're installing _plastic _panels, a panel IS a '_ferrous enclosure_' Hax

~CS~


----------



## telsa

HackWork said:


> I posted about that article in post #39. That is not talking about a GEC entering a panel, it is talking about an enclosure for a GEC like this:


Absolutely NOT.

Hence the Kenny clamp.

It would not exist, would not EVER sell, without this NEC insistence.

&&&

We ALL understand that this provision ONLY exists for fault conditions.

But, there it is.

My AHJ is all over it like a wet diaper.

Dang, if it's not the FIRST thing they look for.

( Which kind of astonished me -- the first time I ran into it. )

The implication: there are a LOT of Hacks out there.

&&&

The typical Service can go a century -- and never see the kind of fault condition that this provision is designed to address.

The reason for it: there can NEVER be an INSTANT when the path to the GEC is 'choked.'

This is something that is beyond Hax's ken.

The necessity for this is only plain when the gear is subjected to the tests generated at a national testing laboratory.

Then, it's STARK.

Even the panel can is an EMF barrier to fault currents.

It's as if a resistor was put in place -- actually it's an inductor.

As the surge mounts, the voltage differential EXPLODES.

Yes, it's more than enough to strike you dead and launch the building into flames.

The critical factor: just how INTENSE is the jolt. ( transformer fault// lightning )

If none of this, posted here, was true, Kenny would have ZERO business...

And all of the other gadgets you see listed -- yeah -- they wouldn't exist, either.


----------



## telsa

manchestersparky said:


> 250.64(E)
> 
> (E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors.
> 
> (1) General. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. *
> 
> Ferrous metal* raceways and *enclosures* shall be bonded at each end of the raceway* or enclosure ...
> 
> to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path*.
> 
> Nonferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.


Ain't it brutal ?


----------



## chicken steve

Indeed

that difference in _potential _, even for a millisecond

i'm told it's better for everything to '_spike_' to a million volts, *VS*. some equipment to a million, and some to 1/2 a million volts

~CS~


----------



## splatz

HackWork said:


> Siemens calls it the GEC hole.
> 
> Here's a pic:
> View attachment 118994


Where is that, in the instructions? If not it could be for mounting a flange or a weep hole. 

If it's either explicitly allowed in the code, or in the instructions for a listed product, I'd think you're covered. I am not really seeing anything conclusive on either side here. 

I just never liked the two screw clamp, and an open conductor passing through a hole in sheet metal always looked janky to me. The Arlington collet type is nice but the Bridgeport with the built in intersystem bonding bridge is going to make the nicest possible install. The intersystem bonding bridge is worth $5 or so so either the Arlington or the Bridgeport is costing you all of $3, a fart in the wind.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Unless you're installing _plastic _panels, a panel IS a '_ferrous enclosure_' Hax
> 
> ~CS~


A panel is not an "Enclosure _for_ a GEC". The image I posted clearly shows what they are talking about.


----------



## HackWork

telsa said:


> Ain't it brutal ?


The only thing brutal is that you don't understand code even after pictures were drawn for you.

Your assertion that the mere existence of a Kenny Clamp means that it must be used in this one instance is handyman level remedial, at best.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> The only thing brutal is that you don't understand code even after pictures were drawn for you.
> 
> .


Brutal in that you've posted pictoral _advocation_ of 250.64(E) yourself, and still don't '_get it_' Hax......~CS~:no:


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Brutal in that you've posted pictoral _advocation_ of 250.64(E) yourself, and still don't '_get it_' Hax......~CS~:no:


I don't disagree with the existence of 250.64(E). The problem is that you and Telsa don't understand the application, even after seeing the picture of what an enclosure *for* the GEC is.

An enclosure for a GEC is the same as a raceway for a GEC and needs to be bonded on both sides. But that has nothing to do with a panel that the GEC is terminating in, and it is clearly not required in that instance.


----------



## chicken steve

> An *enclosure* for a GEC is the same as a raceway for a GEC and needs to be bonded on both sides. But that has nothing to do with a* panel *that the GEC is terminating in, and it is clearly not required in that instance.



and the _dif_ would be?:shifty:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> and the _dif_ would be?:shifty:
> 
> ~CS~


That it clearly says an enclosure for a GEC that the GEC enters and exits.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> That it clearly says an enclosure for a GEC that the GEC enters and exits.


ok then*>>>>*



> *Enclosure. * The case or housing of apparatus, or the fence or
> walls surrounding an installation to prevent personnel from
> accidentally contacting energized parts or to protect the equip‐
> ment from physical damage. (CMP-1)
> _Informational Note: See Table *110.28* for examples of enclosure
> types._


*>>>>*



> *110.28 Enclosure Types*. Enclosures (other than surrounding
> fences or walls covered in 110.31 ) of switchboards, switchgear,
> *panelboards,* industrial control panels, motor control centers,
> meter sockets, enclosed switches, transfer switches, power
> outlets, circuit breakers, adjustable-speed drive systems, pullout
> switches, portable power distribution equipment, termination
> boxes, general-purpose transformers, fi re pump controllers,
> fi re pump motors, and motor controllers.


~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> ok then*>>>>*
> 
> 
> 
> *>>>>*
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


What part of an enclosure *for* a GEC do you not understand?

Apparently it's the "for" part. 

I would tell you that I was going to draw you a pictures, but I already did and it's still not working...


----------



## chicken steve

You're reducing this to arguing _semantics_ Hax?



> I was going to draw you a pictures, but I already did and it's still not working


allow me then....

*>>>*













~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> You're reducing this to arguing _semantics_ Hax?
> 
> ~CS~


No, just facts. Words have specific meaning when it comes to the code. 

Once again you are arguing against something that 99.999% of the word agrees upon. Only this time you have another jokers on your side. You and telsa should get a room and make liberal love to each other.


----------



## chicken steve

_(translation)_ *>>>*










~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> _(translation)_ *>>>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


There is that delusion of grandeur again. It's too bad that you can't just post the code requirement instead of silly pictures.


----------



## chicken steve

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

What is more mediocre than so-called electrician who don't understand basic electrical code and aren't willing to educate themselves?


----------



## Roger

Once again, the product is simply a scam, just push the GEC through one of the 1/4" holes (of course this is if the GEC is not required to be larger) in the bottom, when it is bonded in the enclosure everything becomes one componet so there is no choke effect through the hole.

Click Here for one manufacturers answer

Roger


----------



## sbrn33

Roger said:


> Once again, the product is simply a scam, just push the GEC through one of the 1/4" holes (of course this is if the GEC is not required to be larger) in the bottom, when it is bonded in the enclosure everything becomes one componet so there is no choke effect through the hole.
> 
> Click Here for one manufacturers answer
> 
> Roger


That pretty much says it all. Telsa you are wrong and now you can explain it to your inspector.


----------



## macmikeman

Enough of this crap. Telsa is wrong about this. *macmikeman has spoken! 
*
*I know my codes and my codes know me.* The codes cited in this thread so far are talking about the bonding of enclosures together that the Gec is run to, not bonding the gec to the enclosures except for the exact spot where the GEC connects to the neutral. That bond. And the picture from Mike Holt is correct for ferrous metal raceways enclosing the gec as would be mandated for protection from physical damage such as when you can run #8 copper as your gec for a 100 amp service but that #8 has to be protected from physical damage or else be changed to a #6 and secured to the building finish closely. 


Reading Telsa's posts just now and I could swear Chicken Steve hacked his password and was posting using his account.


----------



## macmikeman

You guys are a bunch of sorry asses for making threads up like this while I am asleep. Shame on each and every one of you . 


In the future I demand you consult your world time clock and note that Hawaii is behind all the places on the continent except for parts of Alaska. Post accordingly! Or else! and remember,,, macmikeman is always right!


----------



## macmikeman

Kenny Clamp = those old style cardboard cutouts we used to put into masonry boxes over the conduits entering the enclosure and screwing on a plastic bushing over top of them to seal the conduits from any possibility of concrete entering them at the box. They worked great at keeping concrete out, but you had to remove the bushings after the pour and that was a hassle

Useless! 

Kenny clamps are not required by the NEC. Period. You are allowed to use them if you like. You are also allowed to use fantastically expensive wire connecting devices called lever nuts also. Neither is mandatory however. Both are nice products just like the cardboard ko sealers I think we used to call them Pennies in the trade, but I haven't seen em on wholesalers shelves in decades. And by the way Dennis, I have stationed CIA Agents nearby your location, so do us all a favor and don't make me arrange for an Arkancide regarding your solution to this thread issue by submitting six dozen proposals to the NEC now to require the use of Kenny Clamps or else Buster!


----------



## HackWork

Tesla owes me an apology.


----------



## sbrn33

I never even thought about Dennis seeing this and writing a code proposal. Great.


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> Tesla owes me an apology.


Absolutely he does. Kenny Clamps are not mandatory and he is wrong. 

And he called you a handyman to boot.


----------



## manchestersparky

HackWork said:


> I posted about that article in post #39. That is not talking about a GEC entering a panel, it is talking about an enclosure for a GEC like this:


I understand, I was just posting the article you mentioned. 

Here's a thought, The 2014 NEC Handbook has a picture of the GEC, in a metallic conduit,going into a panel. They show a bonding jumper going from the neutral bar to a bond bushing on that conduit. Would not the locknuts on the conduit provide the same bond ??
I am not saying yes , I am not saying no. Curious as to what the fine folks here think


----------



## Roger

manchestersparky said:


> Here's a thought, The 2014 NEC Handbook has a picture of the GEC, in a metallic conduit,going into a panel. They show a bonding jumper going from the neutral bar to a bond bushing on that conduit. Would not the locknuts on the conduit provide the same bond ??
> I am not saying yes , I am not saying no. Curious as to what the fine folks here think


I say yes they would and the NECH commentary is not a formal interpretation. 

With that said, 250.97 _Exception No. 2
_ recognizes two locknuts as being an approved bonding connection for over 250V.

Roger


----------



## HackWork

I can't wait for the big apology from @telsa

I don't expect one from @chicken steve


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> Absolutely he does. Kenny Clamps are not mandatory and he is wrong.
> 
> And he called you a handyman to boot.


I believe he also said "hack" and since I use the little holes
he called me names too.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I believe he also said "hack" and since I use the little holes
> he called me names too.


No one... and I mean NO ONE... calls me a hack


----------



## lighterup

I think everyone should take a yoga moment here 
and just breath...breaeeeeath...innnn...thennnn...ouuut

we should realize , Telsa is in California...the Golden
state....it should be renamed ..."The Regulation State"

It just might very well be required there ...inspectors 
jones-ing for "Kenny Clamps" types


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I think everyone should take a yoga moment here
> and just breath...breaeeeeath...innnn...thennnn...ouuut
> 
> we should realize , Telsa is in California...the Golden
> state....it should be renamed ..."The Regulation State"
> 
> It just might very well be required there ...inspectors
> jones-ing for "Kenny Clamps" types


That's understandable if he was saying it that way. But he wasn't talking about his own state, he said it was in the NEC. 

And he was just SO sure of it:



telsa said:


> I'm not your Web clerk.





telsa said:


> There is NO chance that you win on this one.





telsa said:


> You've got everything BACKWARDS.





telsa said:


> Until then, your work is as decent as any handy man's -- any hack -- any DIY.





telsa said:


> This is something that is beyond Hax's ken.





telsa said:


> Ain't it brutal ?


----------



## chicken steve

manchestersparky said:


> I understand, I was just posting the article you mentioned.
> 
> Here's a thought, The 2014 NEC Handbook has a picture of the GEC, in a metallic conduit,going into a panel. They show a bonding jumper going from the neutral bar to a bond bushing on that conduit. Would not the locknuts on the conduit provide the same bond ??
> I am not saying yes , I am not saying no. Curious as to what the fine folks here think


I'm looking at what i believe is the same pix in the '17, Exhibit 250.28

It might be properly _bonded_ either way, but it would need to meet the following passage in addition to this as a GEC in a metalic raceway (my bold, red is the '17 change)>>>




> 250.64(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode
> Conductors.
> (1) General. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for
> grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continu‐
> ous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to
> the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
> ground clamp or fitting. *Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures
> shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the
> grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to
> create an electrically parallel path*. Nonferrous metal raceways
> and enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.


~CS~


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> No one... and I mean NO ONE... calls me a hack


well at least he didn't call you a** backwards...

he did get a bit uncharacteristically harsh there:no:

But , I have got to admit , It sure was nice watching
someone else get reamed over code issues by Hackworks...

I just sat back , with the warm fuzzies and enjoyed the 
reading.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

sbrn33 said:


> I never even thought about Dennis seeing this and writing a code proposal. Great.


 did dennis see this? Is he writing a code proposal? Id be very bragadoshious if this is true


----------



## chicken steve

*Milbank tech support*


*From: Chicken Electric 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:10 PM
To: Rick Holbrook
Subject: Technical Question for you*



Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook
My name is Steve , I'm a Vermont electrician with a question about Milbank meters and/or enclosures I'm hoping you can help me with.

It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for

Some say it's for the GEC (Grounding Electrode conductor)* , usually a bare #6 or #4 copper wire to simply run through

However, we are finding this is not to code, the NEC passage(s) below being applicable

Can you unfuzz me please? Thank you for your time
~Steve Vermont Electrician

*From: Rick Holbrook 
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:04 PM
To: Chicken Electric
Subject: FW: Technical Question for you*


*Hi Steve,
The ¼” KO’s are for water drainage only.*

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

Not a single person here said *anything* about the meter pan. We were talking about the electrical panel.

I find it funny that you will post this, yet you won't admit that you were completely wrong about 250.64(E). Not only were you proven wrong here, but it was confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt at Mike Holt's. Yet you and telsa won't acknowledge it, and will end up saying it all over again int he next thread.

Two clowns.


----------



## chicken steve

This is just ONE source......I'm not done yet :no:~CS~:shifty:


----------



## chicken steve

ElectricalArtist said:


> did dennis see this? Is he writing a code proposal? Id be very bragadoshious if this is true


He's actually written a few very important ROP's....~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> This is just ONE source......I'm not done yet :no:~CS~:shifty:


You *are* done. There is no requirement to bond the GEC when it enters a panel (I never said a meter, I have never brought a GEC into a meter). You and telsa are the ONLY people who say that you do and neither of you can back it up with any substantiation. You both know that you are wrong.


----------



## chicken steve

We can contact as _many_ tech support people as the forum participants would like

In fact, as i've made the _effort_ to do so, I'll be posting their responses

thx :thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> We can contact as _many_ tech support people as the forum participants would like
> 
> In fact, as i've made the _effort_ to do so, I'll be posting their responses
> 
> thx :thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~


"Tech support people" have nothing to do with this discussion, as I just explained in my last post.

The NEC does *not* require you to bond a GEC as it enters a panel, that is all that matters.


----------



## MTW

Kenny clamps? Bonding GEC's required? Someone please stop this from becoming the MH Forum.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> What is more mediocre than so-called electrician who don't understand basic electrical code and aren't willing to educate themselves?


I think it's obvious that Steve just plays an electrician. His lack of code and trade knowledge is astonishing.


----------



## lighterup

It's really not a dispute...every single electrician I know
or have worked for , as well as myself uses the little 1/4" 
hole for the GEC to enter into the panel box and terminate
on the Neutral buss bar for mains or the grounding bar
for main lugs.

I am really amazed this thread is still active.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I am really amazed this thread is still active.


I'm not. Lying to everyone about something that everyone knows is a lie is Steve's M.O. It's too bad that telsa went full re-tard on this with him. Telsa doesn't have the balls to even show up here and answer for himself, he is hiding behind some woman's skirt.


----------



## MTW

I've been using the 1/4" holes in the panels and meter sockets for a long time now. Never even dreamed of having to bond it to the enclosure.


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> I've been using the 1/4" holes in the panels and meter sockets for a long time now. Never even dreamed of having to bond it to the enclosure.


It actually does bond to it once it's landed ... any other 
requirement at the panel would be redundant


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> It's really not a dispute...every single electrician I know
> or have worked for , as well as myself uses the little 1/4"
> hole for the GEC to enter into the panel box and terminate
> on the Neutral buss bar for mains or the grounding bar
> for main lugs.
> 
> 
> 
> Including myself, since Carter was in office
> 
> Quite the epiphany you see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really amazed this thread is still active.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me post what i can harvest from the '_powers that be_' , and then decide if it's all a waste of time
> 
> _deal?_
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## trentonmakes

lighterup said:


> It actually does bond to it once it's landed ... any other
> requirement at the panel would be redundant


Eggsactly!

Texting and Driving


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> lighterup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including myself, since Carter was in office
> 
> Quite the epiphany you see...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me post what i can harvest from the '_powers that be_' , and then decide if it's all a waste of time
> 
> _deal?_
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean it was waste of time , I just think it's
> a no brainer ....if doing this is "hack" or "a*s backwards
> then I'm going to tell you now , I have some real pricks
> in NE Ohio , (specifically Akron) per building officials and
> if this was wrong I would have been red tagged long ago.
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Let me post what i can harvest from the '_powers that be_' , and then decide if it's all a waste of time
> 
> _deal?_
> 
> ~CS~


No, no deal. The people that you call "the powers that be" have absolutely zero power. The NEC is the only thing that matters. And the NEC is clear that you do not have to bond the GEC as it enters the panel.

What you are doing right now is typical, you are trying to find any way possible to avoid admitting you are wrong. Just like in the other thread about the main breaker subpanel in the kitchen, when you found that the code prohibited why you proposed you started saying that "OSHA" required it for "lotto". A silly attempt to fool everyone, but no one believed it.


----------



## lighterup

All we need is Love.....da-da-da-tada:vs_music:
All we need is Love.....da-da-da-tada:vs_music:

All we need is Love....Love....
Love is all we need (_Love is all we need_)
Love is all we need (_Love is all we need_)


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> All we need is Love.....da-da-da-tada:vs_music:
> All we need is Love.....da-da-da-tada:vs_music:
> 
> All we need is Love....Love....
> Love is all we need (_Love is all we need_)
> Love is all we need (_Love is all we need_)


I have lots of love to give Steve and telsa the second they say "My bad". 

A few weeks ago I was schooled by an apprentice on code, what I posted was completely wrong. When he showed me the article I said that I didn't know that and thanked him for explaining it to me. I didn't dig in and refuse to admit a mistake and allow other people reading it to listen to me and do something incorrect.


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean it was waste of time , I just think it's
> a no brainer ....if doing this is "hack" or "a*s backwards
> then I'm going to tell you now , I have some real pricks
> in NE Ohio , (specifically Akron) per building officials and
> if this was wrong I would have been red tagged long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking we've all been used to doing a certain install the same way for so long that it is, in fact, considered a '_no brainer_'
> 
> I to have some real _'pricks_' to answer to , yet they are not infallible , and i have brought many a detailed concern to them where they've rethought _no brainers_
> 
> '_details' _my friend, is what separates the men from the boys in this trade
> 
> More as they all answer me back.....:thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> I'm thinking we've all been used to doing a certain install the same way for so long that it is, in fact, considered a '_no brainer_'
> 
> I to have some real _'pricks_' to answer to , yet they are not infallible , and i have brought many a detailed concern to them where they've rethought _no brainers_
> 
> '_details' _my friend, is what separates the men from the boys in this trade
> 
> More as they all answer me back.....:thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~


 None of this crap you keep spewing explains what code article requires you to bond the GEC as it enters a panel.


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> It actually does bond to it once it's landed ... any other
> requirement at the panel would be redundant


Well duh. That's why the "kenny clamp" is nonsense.


----------



## MTW

Steve, I second this motion. Show us the code article that requires this bond. Otherwise, stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## MTW

splatz said:


> https://www.homedepot.com/p/Madison...stem-Bonding-Bridge-Connector-MEIBB/204754824


That's a great product for satisfying the intersystem bonding requirement, as long as the poco allows the GEC to land in the meter socket (some don't allow it.) But again, the NEC does not require the GEC to be bonded to the enclosure.


----------



## HackWork

Steve's tactics are so transparent that I can already see exactly what he is going to do. 

He is going to contact many manufacturers, then he will cherry pick the responses from the customer service reps who don't have a clue what is going on who say something like "The openings are for approved connectors". 

Then he is going to post it as if it means something. You will be able to feel his self-righteousness in the air like a humid day. 

And all the while he will completely ignore the part about how it doesn't matter what the manufacturer put the hole there for, the only thing that matters is that the GEC does not need to be bonded as it enters a panel.

You'll notice he is not speaking about that anymore (because he can't substantiate his position and he knows it), he moved to only talking about the small hole in the panel, hoping that he can turn that into something that will confuse people into thinking he was right.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Steve's tactics are so transparent that I can already see exactly what he is going to do.
> 
> He is going to contact many manufacturers, then he will cherry pick the responses from the customer service reps who don't have a clue what is going on who say something like "The openings are for approved connectors".
> 
> Then he is going to post it as if it means something. You will be able to feel his self-righteousness in the air like a humid day.
> 
> And all the while he will completely ignore the part about how it doesn't matter what the manufacturer put the hole there for, the only thing that matters is that the GEC does not need to be bonded as it enters a panel.
> 
> You'll notice he is not speaking about that anymore (because he can't substantiate his position and he knows it), he moved to only talking about the small hole in the panel, hoping that he can turn that into something that will confuse people into thinking he was right.


That intersystem bonding connector that MTW just posted above
yours.... see it?

I am installing a service tomorrow and instead of using the 
outdoor one ( that I normally install on the GEC from ground 
rods) , I am installing that one under my panel and bringing 
the GEC into the panel that way.

I have written down all code references claiming this is 
required. I will be there for the inspection and will let
all know how it went.

I will take pictures of the install and the tag I get from the
building department (red or green? we shall see)


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> That intersystem bonding connector that MTW just posted above
> yours.... see it?
> 
> I am installing a service tomorrow and instead of using the
> outdoor one ( that I normally install on the GEC from ground
> rods) , I am installing that one under my panel and bringing
> the GEC into the panel that way.
> 
> I have written down all code references claiming this is
> required. I will be there for the inspection and will let
> all know how it went.
> 
> I will take pictures of the install and the tag I get from the
> building department (red or green? we shall see)


 I don’t see any reason why you should fail. What do you think is he will say?


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I don’t see any reason why you should fail. What do you think is he will say?


#1 I want to see if they accept the intersystem bonding 
Bar at the panel as opposed to outside @ the meter
where phone & tv usually terminate.

#2 If they reject this at the panel , I will site the codes 
that were used above alleging we are supposed to use
this product that some are claiming...to bond GEC @ 
Panel as opposed to using the 1/4" hole.

This way I'll get a code interpretation from my local AHJ.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> #1 I want to see if they accept the intersystem bonding
> Bar at the panel as opposed to outside @ the meter
> where phone & tv usually terminate.
> 
> #2 If they reject this at the panel , I will site the codes
> that were used above alleging we are supposed to use
> this product that some are claiming...to bond GEC @
> Panel as opposed to using the 1/4" hole.
> 
> This way I'll get a code interpretation from my local AHJ.


The code requires the intersystem bonding block to be at the service. All discussions I have seen about this subject from the code gurus say that it's ok to put it inside by the main panel since it's part of the service. 

Some of the other utilities have the provisions to ground them inside anyway. So I have put it inside and never had an issue.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> The code requires the intersystem bonding block to be at the service. All discussions I have seen about this subject from the code gurus say that it's ok to put it inside by the main panel since it's part of the service.
> 
> Some of the other utilities have the provisions to ground them inside anyway. So I have put it inside and never had an issue.


Whatever happens , I'm going to find out what the inspector
has to say about using the 1/4" hole.


----------



## macmikeman

lighterup said:


> Whatever happens , I'm going to find out what the inspector
> has to say about using the 1/4" hole.


You best be quick about it, Dennis has submitted 77 proposals this week.


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> #2 If they reject this at the panel , I will site the codes
> that were used above alleging we are supposed to use
> this product that some are claiming...to bond GEC @
> Panel as opposed to using the 1/4" hole.
> 
> This way I'll get a code interpretation from my local AHJ.


I sense possible _confusion_ here Lighter.

Please read 250.64E again , inparticular>>>



> electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
> ground clamp or fitting.


as well as the '17 inclusion (red)



> Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures
> shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the
> grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path



The rationale being any GEC not bonded on immediate entry will introduce the specter of a _'choke'_ 

This would be _any_ meter, panel, or other enclosure a GEC may penetrate , being they are ALL enclosures by definition

Is this important? Well when Mother Nature imparts her wrath @ 1,000,000 volts and that GEC is '_choked_' , it can't do the job it is installed for. Do we really need to calculate the* R *factor of a bad connection* X* that *V* to understand this?

FWIW< i've had 1000's of _passed_ inspections throwing a GEC thru the *1/4* " drain hole. ALL my AHJ's missed it, ALL my poco reps did too

I'm also an IAEI certified inspector 

WE are not the end all when it comes to finer detail

~CS~


----------



## macmikeman

chicken steve said:


> I sense possible _confusion_ here Lighter.
> 
> Please read 250.64E again , inparticular>>>
> 
> 
> 
> as well as the '17 inclusion (red)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationale being any GEC not bonded on immediate entry will introduce the specter of a _'choke'_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be _any_ meter, panel, or other enclosure a GEC may penetrate , being they are ALL enclosures by definition
> 
> Is this important? Well when Mother Nature imparts her wrath @ 1,000,000 volts and that GEC is '_choked_' , it can't do the job it is installed for. Do we really need to calculate the* R *factor of a bad connection* X* that *V* to understand this?
> 
> FWIW< i've had 1000's of _passed_ inspections throwing a GEC thru the *1/4* " drain hole. ALL my AHJ's missed it, ALL my poco reps did too
> 
> I'm also an IAEI certified inspector
> 
> WE are not the end all when it comes to finer detail
> 
> ~CS~


Apologies to the Late Tom Petty. 

Steve's song:

Well I won't back down,
Cause I am a clown,
And this Hackworks fella keeps on bringing me down , 
Cause my lie's been found. 
And still I , won't back down.

Hey Baby, 
There ain't no easy way out,
Hey I, 
Know this code ain't found,
Cause it ain't around. 
And still I won't back down.


----------



## Going_Commando

Hey Steve, if an enclosure or raceway is required to be bonded at each end to the grounding electrode conductor, how do you do that when the grounding electrode conductor doesn't pass through? Do you run the GEC up to a bonding bushing to all the raceways entering a panel and then run it to the ground bar? Isn't the intent of the code to make sure there is a bonded electrical parallel path through the raceways and enclosures the grounding electrode conductor runs through from the grounding electrode to the termination point? You are already bonding the GEC in the panel enclosure to the panel enclosure, and it isn't passing through. Where is the electrical parallel path going to be in a bonded enclosure where the conductor does not keep running through?

ETA: I would definitely trust Milbank tech support's opinion over Mike Holt's. Most def.


----------



## chicken steve

Going_Commando said:


> Hey Steve, if an enclosure or raceway is required to be bonded at each end to the grounding electrode conductor, how do you do that when the grounding electrode conductor doesn't pass through?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm under the impression it is terminated on _entry_ w/approved connector, then advances to it's termination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you run the GEC up to a bonding bushing to all the raceways entering a panel and then run it to the ground bar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to consider what install it would be, but at _some_ point a GEC would have to make to an MBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the intent of the code to make sure there is a bonded electrical parallel path through the raceways and enclosures the grounding electrode conductor runs through from the grounding electrode to the termination point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe so, in fact the '17 change in 250.64E appears to _emphasize_ this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are already bonding the GEC in the panel enclosure to the panel enclosure, and it isn't passing through. Where is the electrical parallel path going to be in a bonded enclosure where the conductor does not keep running through?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well IT IS bonded, according to what we would normally 'bond' in art 250
> 
> But here i'm reading the ante' upp'd for GEC's
> 
> _why?_ :blink:
> 
> because that electrical path may be only a _few_ inches from entry to termination, but if both ends are _not_ bonded it'll act as a choke via a lightning (_or i suppose poco primary_) strike
> 
> sounds insignificant , but i sense someone somewhere (smarter than i) has done the math as the charge _exits_ to ground
> 
> ergo the path '_parallel_' in an 'enclosure'>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures
> shall be bonded at each end of the raceway* or enclosure to the
> grounding electrode * or grounding electrode conductor to
> create an electrically parallel path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which kicks us up to>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 250.92(B)(2)(4) Other* listed* devices, such as bonding-type locknuts, *bushings*, or bushings with bonding jumpers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Kenny clamp i'm just now (after decades) learning about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: I would definitely trust Milbank tech support's opinion over Mike Holt's. Most def
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While i consider them a good resource , they too often drop the ball
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> I sense possible _confusion_ here Lighter.
> 
> Please read 250.64E again , inparticular>>>
> 
> 
> 
> as well as the '17 inclusion (red)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationale being any GEC not bonded on immediate entry will introduce the specter of a _'choke'_
> 
> This would be _any_ meter, panel, or other enclosure a GEC may penetrate , being they are ALL enclosures by definition
> 
> Is this important? Well when Mother Nature imparts her wrath @ 1,000,000 volts and that GEC is '_choked_' , it can't do the job it is installed for. Do we really need to calculate the* R *factor of a bad connection* X* that *V* to understand this?
> 
> FWIW< i've had 1000's of _passed_ inspections throwing a GEC thru the *1/4* " drain hole. ALL my AHJ's missed it, ALL my poco reps did too
> 
> I'm also an IAEI certified inspector
> 
> WE are not the end all when it comes to finer detail
> 
> ~CS~


In post #115
MTW has a link that shows an intersystem bonding bar
that secures via a 1/2" knockout. The GEC appears to
slide through the center of it and into the panel board.

Is this the product that you are saying will meet the
new 17 code your sighting.

BTW ...I still have a couple of weeks to go before we
will be under the 17 code in Ohio (for residential) so
I am still operating under a permit pulled under the
14 code...fyi...but lets just say I'm under the 17 code 
for now


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> In post #115
> MTW has a link that shows an intersystem bonding bar
> that secures via a 1/2" knockout. The GEC appears to
> slide through the center of it and into the panel board.
> 
> Is this the product that you are saying will meet the
> new 17 code your sighting.
> 
> BTW ...I still have a couple of weeks to go before we
> will be under the 17 code in Ohio (for residential) so
> I am still operating under a permit pulled under the
> 14 code...fyi...but lets just say I'm under the 17 code
> for now


I see, sorry.....

So it makes to _and_ bonds the enclosure?

I might as well start stocking them now then 

who makes them?

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> I see, sorry.....
> 
> So it makes to _and_ bonds the enclosure?
> 
> I might as well start stocking them now then
> 
> who makes them?
> 
> ~CS~


I'm asking you. Is this the product you are referring to?
I'm not saying it is..I'm asking


----------



## HackWork

Steve is being dishonest again. When he cites code, he is clearly leaving out the part that matters, and proves hm wrong.

250.64(E) clearly says "Enclosure *for* a GEC. As everyone knows, that is one that the GEC runs thru. 

I even post an image which shows exactly what it is talking about and how it's not a panel in which the GEC only enters and then terminates.


----------



## HackWork

Going_Commando said:


> ETA: I would definitely trust Milbank tech support's opinion over Mike Holt's. Most def.


Even if every panel manufacturer says that the small hole is not for the GEC to pass thru, that still doesn't change the fact that the NEC does not require the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel.

I think we should forget about the small hole since that is just something Steve is going to use to try and obfuscate this issue. Let's say that you can't use that small hole for the GEC. OK? Everyone agree? Let's just talk about using a bushing to pass the GEC thru a 1/2" KO this way Steve can't use that lame excuse anymore.


----------



## sbrn33

[QUOTE

It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for[/QUOTE]

Steve the meter is what plugs into the meter socket. No way this guy takes you serious. He probably thinks you are a handyman.


----------



## mpoulton

chicken steve said:


> Well when Mother Nature imparts her wrath @ 1,000,000 volts and that GEC is '_choked_' , it can't do the job it is installed for. Do we really need to calculate the* R *factor of a bad connection* X* that *V* to understand this?


Let's do the math. Here's the problem: Lightning protection is the only circumstance when the "choke" effect (inductance) of passing a conductor through the wall of a ferrous enclosure would matter (even a primary-secondary fault is still only 60Hz and current is limited by the grounding electrode resistance so stray inductance is not a major factor). The grounding electrodes themselves are not designed to handle a lightning strike. Even more importantly, lightning protection systems must be laid out carefully to reduce the inductance of the conductors. A GEC, on the other hand, can be routed any way you want and even twisted into a slinky spiral. How much more inductance does that add than an unbonded entrance to a panel? I'd bet a whole lot. Many times more. But someone should do the math and find out!

It seems completely illogical to interpret this code provision this way when the NEC makes no other efforts to reduce inductance in the grounding electrode system. Is that actually the basis for the rule stated by the code panel?


----------



## HackWork

Hi guys. What’s going on? :jester:


----------



## lighterup

sbrn33 said:


> [QUOTE
> 
> It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for


Steve the meter is what plugs into the meter socket. No way this guy takes you serious. He probably thinks you are a handyman.[/QUOTE]

Just for clarity..I have been talking about the main 
breaker load center. I have never landed a GEC in a 
meter socket enclosure and it is my understanding our
POCO wouldn't like it if I did.


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> I'm asking you. Is this the product you are referring to?
> I'm not saying it is..I'm asking


It is a product that _appears_ to address the specific need to bond all enclosures on GEC entry Lighter

The listing of it would, imho, clarify that

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

mpoulton said:


> Let's do the math. Here's the problem: Lightning protection is the only circumstance when the "choke" effect (inductance) of passing a conductor through the wall of a ferrous enclosure would matter (even a primary-secondary fault is still only 60Hz and current is limited by the grounding electrode resistance so stray inductance is not a major factor). *The grounding electrodes themselves are not designed to handle a lightning strike.* Even more importantly, lightning protection systems must be laid out carefully to reduce the inductance of the conductors. *A GEC, on the other hand, can be routed any way you want and even twisted into a slinky spiral.* How much more inductance does that add than an unbonded entrance to a panel? I'd bet a whole lot. Many times more. But someone should do the math and find out!
> 
> It seems completely illogical to interpret this code provision this way when the NEC makes no other efforts to reduce inductance in the grounding electrode system.* Is that actually the basis for the rule stated by the code panel?*


While GECs in NFPA 70 may not meet the standards of NFPA 780, they are what our trade installs for mitigating spikes , either poco or weather related

The intent has always been lightning mitigation & sine wave stability

Straighter, _less _bends,_ less _distance is what i'm told is best for surges of high intensity.

IN fact, i believe one can simply tag a neutral at an OH weatherhead , and come straight on down to grounding electrodes meeting code,no enclosure need apply , albeit some poco reps might have a _cow_.

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> Steve the meter is what plugs into the meter socket. No way this guy takes you serious. He probably thinks you are a handyman.


Just for clarity..I have been talking about the main 
breaker load center. I have never landed a GEC in a 
meter socket enclosure and it is my understanding our
POCO wouldn't like it if I did.[/QUOTE]

One poco here lets us do it either way, and it meets code either way as well.

Is it a better install? 

I'm unsure, would we like mother nature in my meter or panel might be the thing to consider?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

sbrn33 said:


> [QUOTE
> 
> It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for


Steve the meter is what plugs into the meter socket. No way this guy takes you serious. He probably thinks you are a handyman.[/QUOTE]


Doubtful, as he received a company email & letterhead

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

Steve, instead of acting so smart, why don't you learn how to use the quote function? 

I know it's hard to click on the button that says "Quote", but why not try to figure it out?


----------



## MTW

I remember Steve recently accused me of degrading a "pro forum" because I described how things are actually done in day-to-day electrical work.

If anyone is degrading this forum, it's him. Nothing could be worse than advocating for something to be done without a single code article in defense of it, and then going on endless nonsensical tangents to try to justify it. 

It goes without saying that liberalism is a mental disorder and it doesn't stop at one's politics.


----------



## HackWork

Bottom right hand corner you can see where Square D says their meter pans have a 5/16" KO for the grounding conductor.


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> The rationale being any GEC not bonded on immediate entry will introduce the specter of a _'choke'_
> 
> This would be _any_ meter, panel, or other enclosure a GEC may penetrate , being they are ALL enclosures by definition
> 
> Is this important? Well when Mother Nature imparts her wrath @ 1,000,000 volts and that GEC is '_choked_' , it can't do the job it is installed for. Do we really need to calculate the* R *factor of a bad connection* X* that *V* to understand this?


An NEC compliant GEC is not a lightning protection system. Only an actual UL listed and compliantly installed LPS is, and it's a far cry from 2 ground rods and #6 CU. Without an LPS, lightning will do what it wants and a GEC passing through an enclosure in a 1/4" hole is not going to make the slightest difference. 





> FWIW< i've had 1000's of _passed_ inspections throwing a GEC thru the *1/4* " drain hole. ALL my AHJ's missed it, ALL my poco reps did too
> 
> I'm also an IAEI certified inspector
> 
> WE are not the end all when it comes to finer detail
> 
> ~CS~



No, they did not "miss" anything. They did not violate it because it's not an NEC or listing issue.


----------



## Wiresmith

i'm not reading this entire thread, someone else probably referenced it. *250.64(E)(1)* ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.

i don't know how this can be misinterpreted and it is not new.

it creates a choke if you don't bond it there.

wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer doesn't know there a** from a hole in the ground


most people do it without bonding and just use the little hole, but that does not mean it is correct in anyway


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> i'm not reading this entire thread, someone else probably referenced it. *250.64(E)(1)* ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.
> 
> i don't know how this can be misinterpreted and it is not new.
> 
> it creates a choke if you don't bond it there.
> 
> wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer doesn't know there a** from a hole in the ground



That doesn't apply to what we are talking about. We are talking about a bare unprotected wire or a wire in a non-ferrous raceway like PVC. A common scenario would be the GEC entering the meter can which is in PVC in my area 99.9% of the time.


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Many panels have a small hole for that purpose. And there is nothing stopping us from making our own holes.
> 
> The GEC is different than everything else. Support, burial depth, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure the "small hole" you are referring to is the one to recess mount the panel... I don't recall seeing any other "small holes" in the panel. While I agree that I could make my own "small hole", I would still need to use a connector in accordance with the inspector direction and I am sure it is related to rule 12-3022 (1)(b).
> 
> Cheers
> John
Click to expand...

So that code does not apply. It is for insulated conductors. In 2018 CEC they changed the word “conductors” In that code to “cable” for clarification. Cable refers to a manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors as per sec. 0 ( also in the 2018)

I have a brand new panel here and took a look at it. (Schneider) It does have the small KO and it is in the “Canadian” service conductor area.


----------



## Wiresmith

i like this one from generic electric, this is a user manual for there mcc.


----------



## Wiresmith

oops, forgot how to do this


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> That doesn't apply to what we are talking about. We are talking about a bare unprotected wire or a wire in a non-ferrous raceway like PVC. A common scenario would be the GEC entering the meter can which is in PVC in my area 99.9% of the time.


the meter can is pvc? or the pipe, if the enclosure is ferrous it is supposed to be bonded for good reason.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> Bottom right hand corner you can see where Square D says their meter pans have a 5/16" KO for the grounding conductor.


This concern now has a case # at that manufacturer

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

MTW said:


> It goes without saying that liberalism is a mental disorder and it doesn't stop at one's politics.


I did not bring politics into this ET section, and don't appreciate your  efforts to _sabotage _it doing so
:no::no::no:
~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

square d is a good electrical company as a hole but they still don't trump physics


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> I did not bring politics into this ET section, and don't appreciate your  efforts to _sabotage _it doing so
> :no::no::no:
> ~CS~


I didn't bring politics into the discussion, you clearly did not read and understand what I said.


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> the meter can is pvc? or the pipe, if the enclosure is ferrous it is supposed to be bonded for good reason.


:wallbash:

You don't need to bond a piece of pvc which encloses the GEC.


----------



## Wiresmith

there was an article about this in 13', here it is.

http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground 



here is an excerpt

"The magnetic field’s strength increases in proportion to the amount of current in the conductor. In many cases, the magnetic lines of force in the conductor are induced into the conduit enclosing the grounding electrode conductor; they can even surpass the saturation point of the steel raceway. At the point where the grounding electrode conductor exits the conduit, the magnetic lines of force generated by the fault current in the conductor will try to be induced on the end of the conduit, creating a saturation point that exceeds the conduit’s capacity. The steel conduit, in this instance, acts like a steel core of a coil to concentrate the magnetic lines of force. This condition is often referred to as the “choke effect” because it is actually the restriction of a grounding electrode conductor from performing its function. Because of this, specific bonding requirements are necessary for ferrous metal raceways that contain grounding electrode conductors. This is not a concern for grounding electrode conductors that are installed in PVC conduit or other nonferrous metal raceways such as aluminum or brass conduit. Sometimes the type of construction will not permit PVC conduit. 

Section 250.64(E) requires ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection, to be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway to the contained grounding electrode conductor. This action puts the contained grounding electrode conductor in parallel with the enclosing ferrous metal raceway so the two work together when the current in grounding electrode conductors rises and falls in response to various events occurring on the system. The current will actually divide over both paths, but due to the skin effect, the majority will be present in the surrounding ferrous metal raceway. "


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> :wallbash:
> 
> You don't need to bond a piece of pvc which encloses the GEC.


i agree, but would greatly enjoy seeing that done and would take many pictures


----------



## Wiresmith

liquid tight connectors should not be screwed into rigid couplings either, even though most people do it, physics don't care as much about that one though


anybody else buying stock in Kenny clamp companies?


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> I have a brand new panel here and took a look at it. (Schneider) It does have the small KO and it is in the “Canadian” service conductor area.


That was the "small hole" that I thought Hack was talking about; it is used to mount the panel recessed...

The 1/4" holes they are talking about are very defined on the centre of the 1/2" KO; hack attached a picture of what he was referring to.

So they may change the wording of the 2018 code; so do you think we will have to start using the "Kenny Clamp" now?

Cheers

John


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> That was the "small hole" that I thought Hack was talking about; it is used to mount the panel recessed...
> 
> The 1/4" holes they are talking about are very defined on the centre of the 1/2" KO; hack attached a picture of what he was referring to.
> 
> So they may change the wording of the 2018 code; so do you think we will have to start using the "Kenny Clamp" now?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


lol.

I've never actually used the little hole, but after following this thread, I don't believe it is against CEC to use it without a connector. Most of the homes around here are done with plastic connectors including on the ground. Those plastic connectors do nothing to support the conductor but they are ok?

Tis a good discussion


----------



## MTW

MTW said:


> An NEC compliant GEC is not a lightning protection system. Only an actual UL listed and compliantly installed LPS is, and it's a far cry from 2 ground rods and #6 CU. Without an LPS, lightning will do what it wants and a GEC passing through an enclosure in a 1/4" hole is not going to make the slightest difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they did not "miss" anything. They did not violate it because it's not an NEC or listing issue.


Steve, I see you made no attempt to refute anything I said here. That's because you know you're wrong and have no leg to stand on if you even tried to.


----------



## Wiresmith

A ground rod's only purpose in life is to have a designed electrical path to dissipate a static discharge voltage (such as Lightning) to earth. excluding equipotential ground grids


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> A ground rod's only purpose in life is to have a designed electrical path to dissipate a static discharge voltage (such as Lightning) to earth. excluding equipotential ground grids


Only a genuine lightning protection system can achieve that. Do you really think a $10 ground rod connected with an acorn and #6 wire is an LPS? :lol:

Secondly, your statement is not accurate. A ground rod is actually extremely important for accidental contact, which realistically would be a high voltage conductor sagging or falling onto a low voltage circuit on the poco/distribution system. More than enough current would flow to open the fused primary in that scenario.


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> lol.
> 
> I've never actually used the little hole, but after following this thread, I don't believe it is against CEC to use it without a connector. Most of the homes around here are done with plastic connectors including on the ground. Those plastic connectors do nothing to support the conductor but they are ok?
> 
> Tis a good discussion


When I first started in the trade, I was taught to use the small hole, but shortly after we got the "you must use a connector" speech. I recall every once in a while (for whatever reason) would use the small home and would be corrected, so now (last 15 years probably) use a connector, both plastic and metal.

Then comes along ManchesterSparky with the "not approved for use" question; which by the way started this whole mess... and he is right. But I have used plastic and metal connectors for decades... but technically he is right as they are not approved for single conductor.

That is why I referenced the code about connectors and conductors; while it does not specifically say single or insulated conductor I figured that was the reason. I agree that either connector does nothing to support the cable or provide strain relief... but it is what we have, unless we start going into the "Kenny Clamp" world like down under.

For all the choke discussion, my question would be how big does the hole have to be for it not to act as a choke? Then simply make a plastic connector that will clamp down on a #6 or #3 and be done with it. That would cover almost all of the residential installations in North America. All the commercial and industrial stuff is been using other methods for years and the use of a $5 clamp one way or the other is not going to change the scope of a project like that. In reality, the $5 clamp won't change the playing field in residential either, but I suspect it would be a larger market to develop.

Cheers

John


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Only a genuine lightning protection system can achieve that. Do you really think a $10 ground rod connected with an acorn and #6 wire is an LPS? :lol:


nope, but if properly installed it reduces damage and doesn't cost much, you can always do better, that doesn't mean minimum is worthless.



MTW said:


> Secondly, your statement is not accurate. A ground rod is actually extremely important for accidental contact, which realistically would be a high voltage conductor sagging or falling onto a low voltage circuit on the poco/distribution system. More than enough current would flow to open the fused primary in that scenario.


:wallbash: lol, maybe when you calm down you'll learn something.



most people do it the way you say, but it's not right. you were taught like most, wrong. sorry


----------



## eddy current

I believe the "choke" issue is only with incomplete pieces of conduit meant for mechanical protection as explained below. 

Using the little hole in a panel for the ground will not cause this effect.




hd13 said:


> there was an article about this in 13', here it is.
> 
> http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground
> 
> 
> 
> here is an excerpt
> 
> "The magnetic field’s strength increases in proportion to the amount of current in the conductor. In many cases, *the magnetic lines of force in the conductor are induced into the conduit enclosing the grounding electrode conductor;* they can even surpass the saturation point of the steel raceway. At the point* where the grounding electrode conductor exits the conduit, the magnetic lines of force generated by the fault current in the conductor will try to be induced on the end of the conduit, creating a saturation point that exceeds the conduit’s capacity. The steel conduit, in this instance, acts like a steel core of a coil to concentrate the magnetic lines of force.* *This condition is often referred to as the “choke effect”* because it is actually the restriction of a grounding electrode conductor from performing its function. Because of this, specific bonding requirements are *necessary for ferrous metal raceways that contain grounding electrode conductors.* This is not a concern for grounding electrode conductors that are installed in PVC conduit or other nonferrous metal raceways such as aluminum or brass conduit. Sometimes the type of construction will not permit PVC conduit.
> 
> Section 250.64(E) requires ferrous *metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors* that are *not physically continuous* from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, *such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection, to be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway to the contained grounding electrode conductor.* This action puts the contained grounding electrode conductor in parallel with the enclosing ferrous metal raceway so the two work together when the current in grounding electrode conductors rises and falls in response to various events occurring on the system. The current will actually divide over both paths, but due to the skin effect, the majority will be present in the surrounding ferrous metal raceway. "


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> I believe the "choke" issue is only with incomplete pieces of conduit meant for mechanical protection as explained below.
> 
> Using the little hole in a panel for the ground will not cause this effect.


if you read the whole article it says enclosures as well, electricity doesn't care what you call it, if it is ferromagnetic and surrounds the conductor


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> :wallbash: lol, maybe when you calm down you'll learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> most people do it the way you say, but it's not right. you were taught like most, wrong. sorry


What I said was 100% accurate, whereas your statement was not. Please point out where I was wrong.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> if you read the whole article it says enclosures as well, electricity doesn't care what you call it, if it is ferromagnetic and surrounds the conductor


If you read the title of 250.64 you will see that it says Enclosures FOR GEC's. We went over this ad nauseum in this thread, which you said you didn't read. A GEC is bonded to a panel where it terminates. Here is the enclosure FOR a GEC that the article is talking about:










Between this and what you said about the ground rods and lightning, I think it's clear that trying to educate you will be a futile task.


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Secondly, your statement is not accurate. A ground rod is actually extremely important for accidental contact, which realistically would be a high voltage conductor sagging or falling onto a low voltage circuit on the poco/distribution system. More than enough current would flow to open the fused primary in that scenario.


what role are you suggesting a rod plays in this scenario, both systems are bonded to each other even if everyone forgot to put ground rods in that entire town. if there are no rods in that scenario the fuse would blow just as well


ground rods actually make this scenario more dangerous, if the HV hit the ground there would be deadly step potential. unless there were an equipotential grid for the voltage


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> if you read the whole article it says enclosures as well, electricity doesn't care what you call it, if it is ferromagnetic and surrounds the conductor


The huge difference is between passing thru something vs. entering and then terminating (in which it is bonded).


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> what role are you suggesting a rod plays in this scenario, both systems are bonded to each other even if everyone forgot to put ground rods in that entire town. if there are no rods in that scenario the fuse would blow just as well


Ground rods are basically worthless from an NEC standpoint as far as fault clearing goes. They achieve nothing in that regard. Neither are they are lightning protection system.

So we are left with their only practical value which is accidental contact. This has been discussed many hundreds of times here and on Mike Holt's forum. I believe you are the one who needs to be educated here, not me.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> The huge difference is between passing thru something vs. entering and then terminating (in which it is bonded).


But that difference is very useful in obfuscating a clear discussion in which Steve could not admit he is wrong.


----------



## Wiresmith

oh i guess you guys are right, most meter bases are more of a square than a true rectangle. ?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> The huge difference is between passing thru something vs. entering and then terminating (in which it is bonded).


do you not think another grounded conductor exits another passage in a meter base? electricity doesnt care its not called GEC. passing through as in through the wall of.

otherwhys it would just read, the enclosure must be bonded


----------



## trentonmakes

[popcorn]

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> do you not think another grounded conductor exits another passage in a meter base? electricity doesnt care its not called GEC. passing through as in through the wall of.
> 
> otherwhys it would just read, the enclosure must be bonded


The enclosure IS bonded. No one has said not to bond the GEC. What we have said is that there is no code requirement to use a device that bonds the GEC as it enters a panel.


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> do you not think another grounded conductor exits another passage in a meter base? electricity doesnt care its not called GEC. passing through as in through the wall of.
> 
> otherwhys it would just read, the enclosure must be bonded


I see you are semi-literate. I think debating with you is a fruitless exercise.


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> if you read the whole article it says enclosures as well, electricity doesn't care what you call it, if it is ferromagnetic and surrounds the conductor


I read the whole article very carefully. Thanx for posting
it BTW...but what I came away with is that when you
install a GEC in ferrous metal raceway , your doing
so for "physical protection".

By doing this , you now must address the issue of "choking"
which is likely to occur where the GEC leaves the raceway.

It (to me) does not say that choking happens when there 
is no "raceway" , which by definition is over 18" in length or it's
a "chase".(this part I'm adding)

So in summary , if the GEC is not in a race way , because 
there evidently is no concern about physical damage , then
there should not be an issue of "choking"...

Take away the raceway , you take away the potential for 
"choking".

This is what I understood . If I'm wrong , tell me how I mis read it.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> The enclosure IS bonded. No one has said not to bond the GEC.


i agree



HackWork said:


> What we have said is that there is no code requirement to use a device that bonds the GEC as it enters a panel.


i believe the code requires it


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i believe the code requires it


Yet you can't show the article requiring it.

Go back and study the image that I posted.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> I see you are semi-literate. I think debating with you is a fruitless exercise.


hd13 is the new Meadow and telsa is the new mxslick?


----------



## sbrn33

Some threads are gay. This one is not. 
I love how the guys that are wrong just say screw it and quit posting.


----------



## Wiresmith

thanks for asking lighter, the article actually references short sleeves






hd13 said:


> there was an article about this in 13', here it is.
> 
> http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground
> 
> 
> 
> here is an excerpt
> 
> "The magnetic field’s strength increases in proportion to the amount of current in the conductor. In many cases, the magnetic lines of force in the conductor are induced into the conduit enclosing the grounding electrode conductor; they can even surpass the saturation point of the steel raceway. At the point where the grounding electrode conductor exits the conduit, the magnetic lines of force generated by the fault current in the conductor will try to be induced on the end of the conduit, creating a saturation point that exceeds the conduit’s capacity. The steel conduit, in this instance, acts like a steel core of a coil to concentrate the magnetic lines of force. This condition is often referred to as the “choke effect” because it is actually the restriction of a grounding electrode conductor from performing its function. Because of this, specific bonding requirements are necessary for ferrous metal raceways that contain grounding electrode conductors. This is not a concern for grounding electrode conductors that are installed in PVC conduit or other nonferrous metal raceways such as aluminum or brass conduit. Sometimes the type of construction will not permit PVC conduit.
> 
> Section 250.64(E) requires ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection, to be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway to the contained grounding electrode conductor. This action puts the contained grounding electrode conductor in parallel with the enclosing ferrous metal raceway so the two work together when the current in grounding electrode conductors rises and falls in response to various events occurring on the system. The current will actually divide over both paths, but due to the skin effect, the majority will be present in the surrounding ferrous metal raceway. "


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Yet you can't show the article requiring it.
> 
> Go back and study the image that I posted.


i posted it earlier

250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Yet you can't show the article requiring it.
> 
> Go back and study the image that I posted.


i completely agree that hole is for the GEC. still not code compliant or in my opinion the correct way to do it


----------



## MTW

It's obvious that some people have no concept of what we are arguing for and against, except for Steve. He knows full well what the argument is but can't admit he is wrong. 

Of course a metallic raceway enclosing a GEC needs to be bonded. That is a no brainer. We're talking about a single wire in the open air entering an enclosure. That never needs to be bonded because the NEC does not require it. It's just that simple. Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i posted it earlier


And it was refuted. You were educated as to your mistake. But you are not willing to learn. The definition of ignorance.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i completely agree that hole is for the GEC. still not code compliant or in my opinion the correct way to do it


There is no code requirement to use a device that bonds a GEC as it enters a panel that it terminates in and is bonded to.


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> I read the whole article very carefully. Thanx for posting
> it BTW...but what I came away with is that when you
> install a GEC in ferrous metal raceway , your doing
> so for "physical protection".
> 
> By doing this , you now must address the issue of "choking"
> which is likely to occur where the GEC leaves the raceway.
> 
> It (to me) does not say that choking happens when there
> is no "raceway" , which by definition is over 18" in length or it's
> a "chase".(this part I'm adding)
> 
> So in summary , if the GEC is not in a race way , because
> there evidently is no concern about physical damage , then
> there should not be an issue of "choking"...
> 
> Take away the raceway , you take away the potential for
> "choking".
> 
> This is what I understood . If I'm wrong , tell me how I mis read it.



when magnetic material surrounds a conductor and a large current is on the conductor, the impedance of the circuit (conductor) increases(choking/resisting/impeding current flow)(if its not bonded on both ends and used as a parallel conductor), even if you use a 500 instead of a #6 the current flow will be impeded more than if the conductor was bonded where it enters/exits the enclosure no matter what shape or size enclosure. a non-magnetic enclosure/raceway will not do this.


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> when magnetic material surrounds a conductor and a large current is on the conductor, the impedance of the circuit (conductor) increases(choking/resisting/impeding current flow), even if you use a 500 mcm instead of a #6 the current flow will be impeded more than if the conductor was bonded where it enters/exits the enclosure no matter what shape or size enclosure. a non-magnetic enclosure/raceway will not do this.


Oh trust me , I sucked that info up cause I'm starving
for better understanding of grounding. IDK about
anyone else , but our code classes out here seriously
fall short on article 250


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> i posted it earlier
> 
> 250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


Are you saying that a service panel is a ferrous metal raceway or an enclosure for a grounding electrode?


----------



## Going_Commando

hd13 said:


> i posted it earlier
> 
> 250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


That same code article has been posted at least once a page in this thread, by multiple people. You are just ignoring the phrasing. What ever.


----------



## HackWork

eddy current said:


> Are you saying that a service panel is a ferrous metal raceway or an enclosure for a grounding electrode?


Hey now, if a boy can call himself a girl, then why can't a panel identify as an enclosure for a grounding electrode conductor????? :whistling2:


----------



## Mulder

If the GEC has to be bonded to the panel as it leaves the enclosure, that would mean that PVC conduit could not be used as a raceway for the GEC. If PVC is used, there would be no way to connect the GEC to the panel where the GEC exits the panel.


----------



## HackWork

Mulder said:


> If the GEC has to be bonded to the panel as it leaves the enclosure, that would mean that PVC conduit could not be used as a raceway for the GEC. If PVC is used, there would be no way to connect the GEC to the panel where the GEC exits the panel.


Yet again you swoop into a thread with an intelligent and logical post.


----------



## trentonmakes

Mulder said:


> If the GEC has to be bonded to the panel as it leaves the enclosure, that would mean that PVC conduit could not be used as a raceway for the GEC. If PVC is used, there would be no way to connect the GEC to the panel where the GEC exits the panel.


Huh?

Its terminated in the panel thus bonding the panel and the area pvc is connected.

PVC CAN be used as a raceway, you just dont need to bond pvc


Texting and Driving


----------



## Mulder

trentonmakes said:


> Huh?
> 
> Its terminated in the panel thus bonding the panel and the area pvc is connected.
> 
> PVC CAN be used as a raceway, you just dont need to bond pvc
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


I agree, but some others think that the GEC has to be bonded to the panel where it exits the panel, which would not be possible when PVC is used.


----------



## trentonmakes

Mulder said:


> I agree, but some others think that the GEC has to be bonded to the panel where it exits the panel, which would not be possible when PVC is used.


I see....

I misread what you wrote. Lol

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

Mulder said:


> If the GEC has to be bonded to the panel as it leaves the enclosure, that would mean that PVC conduit could not be used as a raceway for the GEC. If PVC is used, there would be no way to connect the GEC to the panel where the GEC exits the panel.



I'm sure the fitting manufacturers will correct that soon so we'll have another unnecessary product to buy.


----------



## flyboy

lighterup said:


> Oh trust me , I sucked that info up cause I'm starving
> for better understanding of grounding. IDK about
> anyone else , but our code classes out here seriously
> fall short on article 250


Try this: https://www.amazon.com/Soares-Book-Grounding-7th-357003/dp/1890659185

Or...

Go to YouTube and search Mike Holt Grounding and Bonding. I stopped counting at 34 videos.


----------



## Switched

Just wrap some "33" around the GEC as it enters the panel, then it is insulated!


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> A ground rod's only purpose in life is to have a designed electrical path to dissipate a static discharge voltage (such as Lightning) to earth. excluding equipotential ground grids


Incorrect. See 250.4 (A) (1)


----------



## BlackHowling

Here is all the CEC says really


Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## BlackHowling

Oh an additional situation for Steve to clarify is "What if I used an insulated wire for my GEC" Which is quite common in the mining and oil/gas field up here. would I have to strip the insulation off as it went through your clamp?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve

BlackHowling said:


> Oh an additional situation for Steve to clarify is "What if I used an insulated wire for my GEC" Which is quite common in the mining and oil/gas field up here. would I have to strip the insulation off as it went through your clamp?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


I don't believe the fundamental _theory_ of ferromagnetism changes .....~CS~


----------



## lighterup

Mulder said:


> I agree, but some others think that the GEC has to be bonded to the panel where it exits the panel, which would not be possible when PVC is used.


according to article describing "choking" , it only happens
if "ferrous metal raceways" are involved...this is why I 
surmised that "_if you take away the ferrous raceway , you _
_take away potential for "choking" because there is no_
_way unwanted inductance and/or impedance to develop _
...at least in a pvc conduit (or no conduit at all)


----------



## lighterup

Switched said:


> Just wrap some "33" around the GEC as it enters the panel, then it is insulated!


Okay ..you deserve this...


----------



## chicken steve

well yes _agreed_, at least in up to the point of _enclosure entry_ Lighter

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> well yes _agreed_, at least in up to the point of _enclosure entry_ Lighter
> 
> ~CS~


I,m just finding it so difficult to believe
that a fault to ground , at the speed &
extremely high voltage that it happens ,
will "choke" at the point of entry to a cabinet 
(1/8" of steel?)..
The fault is not traveling slow.


----------



## chicken steve

BlackHowling said:


> Here is all the CEC says really
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


_'magnetic material'_ is a fare easier and all inclusive reference here.

and so the NEC and CEC follow suit , as well as it's parent IEC

I'm also finding IEEE 142 , ANSI C2 , NEMA ,along with the trade icons on the same fundamental theory page

I'll post what '_yet another_' manufacturer imparts on it's arrival to me >>>




> Thank you for contacting Schneider Electric.
> Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within the next business day.
> 
> Case Reference #: 44928659
> 
> Schneider Electric




~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> I,m just finding it so difficult to believe
> that a fault to ground , at the speed &
> extremely high voltage that it happens ,
> will "choke" at the point of entry to a cabinet
> (1/8" of steel?)..
> The fault is not traveling slow.


I'm not an EE lighter, so i'm _unqualified _to make any mathematical _claims_ one might make......:no:~CS~


----------



## trentonmakes

chicken steve said:


> well yes _agreed_, at least in up to the point of _enclosure entry, where it is bonded to the enclosure_ Lighter
> 
> ~CS~


FIFY



Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> well yes _agreed_, at least in up to the point of _enclosure entry_ Lighter
> 
> ~CS~


But when it enters the metal enclosure thru a PVC pipe, it is ultimately the same as entering thru an open hole. The PVC doesn't change anything. 

That alone blows your enter theory out of the water.


----------



## HackWork

Watch how Steve ignores this because it completely invalidates his argument. Thanks Mulder.


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> according to article describing "choking" , it only happens
> if "ferrous metal raceways" are involved...this is why I
> surmised that "_if you take away the ferrous raceway , you _
> _take away potential for "choking" because there is no_
> _way unwanted inductance and/or impedance to develop _
> ...at least in a pvc conduit (or no conduit at all)


Thinking back to a number of my PVC service installs from point of attachment all the way through the meter and into the structure to the panel, i'd drill a 1/4" hole in the _bottom _of the LB that came from the meter, and drop the GEC _out of it_ into earth.

Passed every time too :notworthy:

Looking back, not only did i _not _meet 250.64E , i probably also violated the _listing_ of the LB.....

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> Thinking back to a number of my PVC service installs from point of attachment all the way through the meter and into the structure to the panel, i'd drill a 1/4" hole in the _bottom _of the LB that came from the meter, and drop the GEC _out of it_ into earth.
> 
> Passed every time too :notworthy:
> 
> Looking back, not only did i _not _meet 250.64E , i probably also violated the _listing_ of the LB.....
> 
> ~CS~


I've drilled small holes in the bottom of LB's as well.
Not for the same reason , but LB's eventually seem
to capture water (PVC-not all but some). I do it so water 
runs back out the bottom and don't have a chance to
run through and into panel


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> I've drilled small holes in the bottom of LB's as well.
> Not for the same reason , but LB's eventually seem
> to capture water (PVC-not all but some). I do it so water
> runs back out the bottom and don't have a chance to
> run through and into panel


Yeah i've used that rationale as well, only to have 300.7 pointed out to me Lighter.....~CS~


----------



## HackWork

You see how Steve is ignoring the question that complete decimates his theory?

Tell us Steve, why can you bring a GEC into a metal enclosure thru a PVC pipe without your fear of the earth blowing up like you say will happen if you bring that same GEC thru the same hole without the PVC?

Is PVC magical? Is it made out of unicorn horns? Are you ever going to admit that you are wrong about something that every other person in the world knows you are wrong about other than maybe 3 other ignoramuses?


----------



## HackWork

Hey look, instead of answering a clear and concise question, Steve is going to just Like and Thank the posts. Good tactic for a technical discussion, not childish or remedial at all.


----------



## eddy current

lighterup said:


> I've drilled small holes in the bottom of LB's as well.
> Not for the same reason , but LB's eventually seem
> to capture water (PVC-not all but some). I do it so water
> runs back out the bottom and don't have a chance to
> run through and into panel


It is code in Canada to do just that for condensation in the exterior standpipe LB as it enters the building.


----------



## lighterup

eddy current said:


> It is code in Canada to do just that for condensation in the exterior standpipe LB as it enters the building.


Yep

I believe where I've seen it was a result of condensation too.
I say this cause I'm referring to LBs that come down from meter
socket enclosures and 90 into the building (not conduits rising
from grade)


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> _'magnetic material'_ is a fare easier and all inclusive reference here.
> 
> and so the NEC and CEC follow suit , as well as it's parent IEC
> 
> I'm also finding IEEE 142 , ANSI C2 , NEMA ,along with the trade icons on the same fundamental theory page
> 
> I'll post what '_yet another_' manufacturer imparts on it's arrival to me >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


The CEC is pretty straight forward on this one.

That code, 10-806(4) reads;

Magnetic materials used to enclose grounding conductors shall be bonded to the grounding conductor at both ends. The picture is from App. B to clarify.

No confusing this code with entering a panel or enclosure as it clearly Only applies to raceways enclosing ground conductors

Still yet to find a code in the CEC that says we must use a connector as the ground enters the panel.


----------



## brian john

HackWork said:


> That's like $1,200 in my pocket by not using that nonsense. :laughing::thumbup:


We need to invent a product then get the NEC written around that product.


I would love to see one instance where an NM connector failed due to the GEC carrying current from a lightning strike?


----------



## lighterup

brian john said:


> We need to invent a product then get the NEC written around that product.
> 
> 
> I would love to see one instance where an NM connector failed due to the GEC carrying current from a lightning strike?


I'd like to see pictures (photos) of the damage


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> The CEC is pretty straight forward on this one.
> 
> That code, 10-806(4) reads;
> 
> Magnetic materials used to enclose grounding conductors shall be bonded to the grounding conductor at both ends. The picture is from App. B to clarify.
> 
> No confusing this code with entering a panel or enclosure as it clearly *Only applies to raceways enclosing ground conductors*
> 
> Still yet to find a code in the CEC that says we must use a connector as the ground enters the panel.



Did i read it_ wrong_ Ed?









~CS~


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Did i read it_ wrong_ Ed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


I have no idea how you read it.

Do you need another explanation? Canadian can be hard to understand sometimes


----------



## chicken steve

brian john said:


> We need to invent a product then get the NEC written around that product.
> 
> 
> I would love to see one instance where an NM connector failed due to the GEC carrying current from a lightning strike?


Too late...

Kenny beat us to it


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> I have no idea how you read it.


Ed, it may show a pix of a raceway, but the wording does not explicitly state it applies to raceways _only_ ....~CS~


----------



## HackWork

All I know is that Steve won't answer this simple question:


HackWork said:


> Tell us Steve, why can you bring a GEC into a metal enclosure thru a PVC pipe without your fear of the earth blowing up like you say will happen if you bring that same GEC thru the same hole without the PVC?
> 
> Is PVC magical? Is it made out of unicorn horns? Are you ever going to admit that you are wrong about something that every other person in the world knows you are wrong about other than maybe 3 other ignoramuses?


Steve, you are still maintaining your assertion, yet you won't support it. If what you said was correct, you would be able to answer my question with a reasonable answer. There is only one reason why you ignore it...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Too late...
> 
> Kenny beat us to it
> 
> 
> ~CS~


Brian said to have the NEC written around that product. The Kenny clamp is not required by the NEC so it won't work for what he is talking about.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Ed, it may show a pix of a raceway, but the wording does not explicitly state it applies to raceways _only_ ....~CS~


OK. Give me an example of where magnetic material is used to enclose grounding conductors (that would have to be bonded at both ends like shown in the picture) that is *not* a raceway.

ETA. Here is the exact wording of the code, in Canadian 

Installation of system grounding conductors
10-806(4) Magnetic materials used to enclose grounding conductors shall be bonded to the grounding conductor at both ends.


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> OK. Give me an example of where magnetic material is used to enclose grounding conductors (that would have to be bonded at both ends like shown in the picture) that is *not* a raceway.
> 
> ETA. Here is the exact wording of the code, in Canadian
> 
> Installation of system grounding conductors
> 10-806(4) Magnetic materials used to enclose grounding conductors shall be bonded to the grounding conductor at both ends.


ok....














































~CS~


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Ed, it may show a pix of a raceway, but the wording does not explicitly state it applies to raceways _only_ ....~CS~





chicken steve said:


> ok....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


None of those are examples of what we are talking about. That code does not apply to any of those situations and if you don't understand that, I'm sorry but I can't help you.

For instance, in the first pic, the grounding conductor starts on the neutral bar and only exits. So where would you bond it at both ends exactly?


----------



## eddy current

Just so you understand what wire I am talking about, here is the definition from the CEC.

Grounding conductor - the conductor used to connect the service equipment or system to the grounding electrode. 

ETA - So again, in the examples you gave can you show me where said wire enters and exits the magnetic material used to enclose it?


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> None of those are examples of what we are talking about. That code does not apply to any of those situations and if you don't understand that, I'm sorry but I can't help you.
> 
> For instance, in the first pic, the grounding conductor starts on the neutral bar and only exits. *So where would you bond it at both ends exactly?*


I see it '_bonded_' at the N bar, as well as _'bonded_' by what looks like a metallic rx connector as it leaves Ed.

I.E.> both _ends_ of it , entry 'end' _and_ terminal 'end' addressed.

~CS~


----------



## eddy current

WOW!

And the picture in our appendix provided for clarity On the code, it looks like the examples you gave does it? Notice how it calls the magnetic material a* protective sleeve*? You posted it in post # 225

That rule is subrule (4). Subrule (5) then goes on to talk about insulating the grounding conductor if the "sleeve" or raceway is longer than 15 meters or has more than 2 quarter bends.

Here, what about this one from our “simplified code”. Different than your examples isn’t it? Lol

Please, argue the CEC with me more, I got lots of time as I don't have any classes until the new year.


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> WOW!
> 
> And the picture in our appendix provided for clarity On the code, it looks like the examples you gave does it? Here, what about this one from our “simplified code”. Different than your examples isn’t it? Lol


You've a GEC terminal bar Ed

I don't see an_ enclosure_

And i'm unsure if it would really _require_ one NEC or CEC 


~CS~


----------



## HackWork

Steve, why won't you answer the question about why you can bring a GEC into a panel thru a PVC pipe without bonding it as it enters the metal panel? 

It's never going to end, I am going to keep asking you, and by you not answering, you are going to continue to prove that you know you are wrong.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> You've a GEC terminal bar Ed
> 
> I don't see an_ enclosure_
> 
> And i'm unsure if it would really _require_ one NEC or CEC
> 
> 
> ~CS~


There is the problem, you only see and read what you want to see. Take another look and put your glasses on.

There is an arrow pointing to it and it says "do not use metal piping for this purpose unless it complies with rule *10-806(4)*.

A true example of the code unlike the pics you posted


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> There is the problem, you only see and read what you want to see. Take another look and put your glasses on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit to my eyeglass _denial _, but i _can_ read it Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an arrow pointing to it and it says "do not use metal piping for this purpose unless it complies with rule *10-806(4)*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes is says that, while pointing to a pvc pipe. a lower passage claims metallics that are unbonded can create a _choke_ effect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true example of the code unlike the pics you posted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is ONE example of code, _unlike_ the configurations i posted that would provide _other_ examples where your 10-806(4)CEC code as our 250.64E matching code would be _applicable_
> 
> The fundamental _theory_ of ferromagntism isn't going to _change_ due to the metallics surrounding it Ed
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> The fundamental _theory_ of ferromagntism isn't going to _change_ due to the metallics surrounding it Ed
> 
> ~CS~


Yet you won't tell us why your "fundamental _theory_ of ferromagntism" changes when a PVC pipe is there :whistling2:


----------



## eddy current

Obviously you can not admit when your wrong. That's ok, many people are like that. Arguing this with you is pointless.

There are over 200 posts on this thread alone trying to explain to you that those codes, both CEC and NEC do not apply here. 

I have many more examples but I don't think me adding more will change your mind.


----------



## chicken steve

eddy current said:


> Obviously you can not admit when your wrong. That's ok, many people are like that. Arguing this with you is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> We have contacted manufacturers , and we may even make Charlie Trout's code of the day cut Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 200 posts on this thread alone trying to explain to you that those codes, both CEC and NEC do not apply here.
> 
> I have many more examples but I don't think me adding more will change your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> _hmmm_. ok ...
> 
> Let me ask you this then
> 
> What is the difference IF you run a GEC through a metallic pipe, and only bond _ONE_ end , *VS. * IF you run a GEC into an enclosure and only bond _ONE_ end
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> We have contacted manufacturers


 And we have explained to you that manufacturers don't have anything to do with the code. 

Even if every manufacturer says that the holes are not for the GEC, that still doesn't change the fact that the GEC doesn't require the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> eddy current said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have contacted manufacturers , and we may even make Charlie Trout's code of the day cut Ed
> 
> .
> 
> _hmmm_. ok ...
> 
> Let me ask you this then
> 
> What is the difference IF you run a GEC through a metallic pipe, and only bond _ONE_ end , *VS. * IF you run a GEC into an enclosure and only bond _ONE_ end
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless trying to explain this to you.
> 
> Good luck
Click to expand...


----------



## trentonmakes

chicken steve said:


> eddy current said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have contacted manufacturers , and we may even make Charlie Trout's code of the day cut Ed
> 
> .
> 
> _hmmm_. ok ...
> 
> Let me ask you this then
> 
> *What is the difference IF you run a GEC through a metallic pipe, and only bond ONE end , VS.  IF you run a GEC into an enclosure and only bond ONE end*
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> An enclosure has no other end, its an enclosure!
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving
Click to expand...


----------



## trentonmakes

How many times do you ground a 4in metallic box???

It enters the box, then terminates in the box. Should i be adding another ground screw as it enters the box???

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> How many times do you ground a 4in metallic box???
> 
> It enters the box, then terminates in the box. Should i be adding another ground screw as it enters the box???
> 
> Texting and Driving


Of course, or else it will blow up.

Unless it enters thru a PVC pipe, then magic happens.


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> Of course, or else it will blow up.
> 
> Unless it enters thru a PVC pipe, then magic happens.


Well we cant have that Hacky!

I will start running everything in pvc sprinkled with pixie dust!
[emoji13][emoji13][emoji13]

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

Right now Steve is literally sitting behind his computer saying "_Yeah! I really got those guys good!_".

But that doesn't compare to the self righteousness he will display when he finds one more manufacturer's $11/hour customer service rep to say that the smaller hole isn't for a GEC.

I also want to point out how telsa, who loves writing 4,000 word essays, hasn't come back once since the bonding device thing was refuted. I guess he was smart, you know what they say about not speaking and letting people assume you are a fool instead of opening your mouth like Steve and showing everyone they were right.


----------



## chicken steve

trentonmakes said:


> How many times do you ground a 4in metallic box???
> 
> It enters the box, then terminates in the box. Should i be adding another ground screw as it enters the box???
> 
> Texting and Driving


GEC, not EGC 

there's a dif Trent

~CS~


----------



## trentonmakes

chicken steve said:


> GEC, not EGC
> 
> there's a dif Trent
> 
> ~CS~


Ok you got me there,

Lets try this....
Would you agree when you land the GEC in the panel, the enclosure is now bonded?

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

I already explained that an NEC GEC is not a UL listed lightning protection system, yet Steve tried to use the "lightning/inductor" argument in favor of bonding the GEC to the enclosure. Steve did not reply or try to disprove what I said. That's because Steve is 100% wrong on this issue but is too much of a coward to admit it.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> I already explained that an NEC GEC is not a UL listed lightning protection system, yet Steve tried to use the "lightning/inductor" argument in favor of bonding the GEC to the enclosure. Steve did not reply or try to disprove what I said. That's because Steve is 100% wrong on this issue but is too much of a coward to admit it.


He also ignored me when I asked 8 times why the "lightning/inductor" issue suddenly goes away when a thin wall of PVC (which is electrically invisible) is present.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> He also ignored me when I asked 8 times why the "lightning/inductor" issue suddenly goes away when a thin wall of PVC (which is electrically invisible) is present.


It's his usual M.O. that we've all seen a million times before. But as you said, he is patting himself on the back and telling himself how much smarter he is than all of us. 

I don't think he really knows that much about electrical work after all.


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> He also ignored me when I asked 8 times why the "lightning/inductor" issue suddenly goes away when a thin wall of PVC (which is electrically invisible) is present.


Pixie Dust!

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> yes is says that, while pointing to a pvc pipe. a lower passage claims metallics that are unbonded can create a _choke_ effect
> 
> 
> The fundamental _theory_ of ferromagntism isn't going to _change_ due to the metallics surrounding it Ed



Steve, why do you keep repeating this like a parrot? How many times do I have to explain to you that a GEC is not a lightning protection system? It has absolutely zero bearing on influencing lighting's destructive path. Have you seen an actual lighting protection system installed on a residence? Probably not, or else you would not keep bringing up this faulty line of reasoning.


----------



## Mulder

chicken steve said:


> GEC, not EGC
> 
> there's a dif Trent
> 
> ~CS~


So you believe that every time that you have installed PVC conduit out of a panel to protect a GEC it was a violation of 250.64(E), correct?


----------



## chicken steve

Mulder said:


> So you believe that every time that you have installed PVC conduit out of a panel to protect a GEC it was a violation of 250.64(E), correct?


Sadly, it appears i may be Mulder 

This particular passage got me here>



> Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures
> shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure


Form my perspective, there is the '_terminating_' end, and the '_entry_' end.

Each '_end_' of the GEC in an '_enclosure_' is required to be bonded

~CS~


----------



## brian john

So here are some very valid points regarding this issue.

1. The GEC is seldom to never used and most residential electrodes are SHEET.
47 years in the trade I have investigated numerous residences where 
lightning hit the home and never noticed any issues the GEC at the panel.
2. I will perform a high current test to check current before and after the entry 
on a GEC.
a. How much current?
b. What is the setup?


----------



## chicken steve

brian john said:


> S
> 
> 
> 
> o here are some very valid points regarding this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The GEC is seldom to never used and most residential electrodes are SHEET.47 years in the trade I have investigated numerous residences where lightning hit the home and never noticed any issues the GEC at the panel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many GEC installs are actually required to meet an _ohmic value_ by local or state jurisdiction may factor in here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will perform a high current test to check current before and after the entry
> on a GEC.
> a. How much current?
> b. What is the setup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Q.
> 
> I seriously do not know save to say i'm confident you'd just be _reinventing the wheel_ , as somebody somewhere has probably gone down this road.
> 
> Possibly in pursuit of listing, perhaps Mr Kenny could be of assistance?
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## WPNortheast

I use bare wire and a steel nm connector. Covered either way and costs me .17 cents a connector.


----------



## trentonmakes

chicken steve said:


> Sadly, it appears i may be Mulder
> 
> This particular passage got me here>
> 
> 
> 
> Form my perspective, there is the '_terminating_' end, and the '_entry_' end.
> 
> Each '_end_' of the GEC in an '_enclosure_' is required to be bonded
> 
> ~CS~


There is only 1 end on an enclosure!
That would be the terminating end, which also bonds the entry, top, sides, bottom.....



From my perspective

Texting and Driving


----------



## chicken steve

WPNortheast said:


> I use bare wire and a steel nm connector. Covered either way and costs me .17 cents a connector.


That a whopping $.17 would mitigate a_ potential_ dispute _humors_ me WP:thumbup:

On the issue of conductor support on '_entry_' alone we've some NEC validation>>>



> *312.5 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures.*
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article
> shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with
> 312.5(A) through (C)
> 
> (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which
> conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner.


and again>>>>




> *314.17 Conductors Entering Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or
> Fittings*. Conductors entering boxes, conduit bodies, or
> fittings shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with
> 314.17(A) through (D).
> (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which
> conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner.



~CS~


----------



## HackWork

WPNortheast said:


> I use bare wire and a steel nm connector. Covered either way and costs me .17 cents a connector.


Here's the thing that a very small handful of people don't want to understand. Using a romex connector like you described is prohibited by code. Running the GEC thru the small hole without any connector or device is code compliant. 

It's really that simple.


----------



## Going_Commando

chicken steve said:


> That a whopping $.17 would mitigate a_ potential_ dispute _humors_ me WP:thumbup:
> 
> On the issue of conductor support on '_entry_' alone we've some NEC validation>>>
> 
> 
> 
> and again>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


Really? I didn't realize that steel NM connectors were listed for bonding. So, if you say that it is required to bond the GEC where it enters any enclosure (which I disagree with), then wouldn't you need to use a fitting listed for bonding? Your logic isn't tracking man, it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## trentonmakes

By Steves logic, ive put many lives in danger with thier swimming pools.
Apparently, I need to bond the deck box as i enter it then again on the bonding lug???




Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

Going_Commando said:


> Really? I didn't realize that steel NM connectors were listed for bonding. So, if you say that it is required to bond the GEC where it enters any enclosure (which I disagree with), then wouldn't you need to use a fitting listed for bonding? Your logic isn't tracking man, it just doesn't make sense.


The same guy who is questioning every manufacturer about the listing to use the small hole for a GEC is ok breaking the listing for romex connectors.

You are watching someone who is drowning grasp for anything he can possibly reach.


----------



## sbrn33

Why are we still discussing this. Chicken steve is wrong and every person here knows it. If he wants to use a $6 connector go ahead but no one has ever failed an inspection because of not using one.


----------



## chicken steve

Going_Commando said:


> Really? I didn't realize that steel NM connectors were listed for bonding. So, if you say that it is required to bond the GEC where it enters any enclosure (which I disagree with), then wouldn't you need to use a fitting listed for bonding? Your logic isn't tracking man, it just doesn't make sense.


I didn't say a steel NM connectors _were_ Commando

What the code does say is, we are to _connect on entry_ to enclosures

Particular installs requiring particular_ listed connectors_ are an added result to this requirement

~CS~


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> I didn't say a steel NM connectors _were_ Commando
> 
> *What the code does say is, we are to connect on entry to enclosures*
> 
> Particular installs requiring particular_ listed connectors_ are an added result to this requirement
> 
> ~CS~


Can you post the article # for me ?

You guys are fk'd now, I got me an NEC :jester:


----------



## chicken steve

post *#264* Ed

as a _general _rule , i'll take it the CEC requires some sort of '_means of attachment_' to be installed on entry of most normal cables,conductors or raceways to '_enclosures_'

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

Going_Commando said:


> Really? I didn't realize that steel NM connectors were listed for bonding. So, if you say that it is required to bond the GEC where it enters any enclosure (which I disagree with), then wouldn't you need to use a fitting listed for bonding? Your logic isn't tracking man, it just doesn't make sense.


WP northeast was the one who brought that up.

CS disagreed with it.

Common guys...I no you don't like em , but 
makin' stuff up?


----------



## HackWork

eddy current said:


> Can you post the article # for me ?
> 
> You guys are fk'd now, I got me an NEC :jester:


What year? 

You should have asked good ol' Hax for the PDF. I have multiple years.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> WP northeast was the one who brought that up.
> 
> CS disagreed with it.
> 
> Common guys...I no you don't like em , but
> makin' stuff up?


I see it as Steve saying that a romex connector would mitigate a potential dispute, as he said.



> That a whopping $.17 would mitigate a potential dispute


----------



## MTW

*A raceway is not an enclosure. An enclosure is not a raceway. *


----------



## HackWork

Steve, I saw your username listed at the bottom of the thread at Mike Holt's so I know you were viewing it. Why haven't you posted all this crap in it? Is it because everyone there says you are wrong and you won't be able to get away with your BS trolling there?


----------



## lighterup

:laughing:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Steve, I saw your username listed at the bottom of the thread at Mike Holt's so I know you were viewing it. Why haven't you posted all this crap in it? Is it because everyone there says you are wrong and you won't be able to get away with your BS trolling there?


Link to that thread?


----------



## trentonmakes

MTW said:


> Link to that thread?


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=188549

Texting and Driving


----------



## Navyguy

In the Canadian code, there is not a definition for "enclosure", but there is one for "cabinet", "raceway", "panelboard", "service box", "splitter", etc.

So basically if I look at what they (the CEC) is saying, an enclosure is any "box" where there is some sort of "termination" or "connection" is happening; where a "raceway" is only where wires pass through (or in) and do not terminate or connect to each other.

Cheers

John


----------



## HackWork

The important word in the NEC is "for". The article is talking about an enclosure _for_ a GEC. A panel is not an enclosure *for* a GEC, the image I posted shows what an enclosure for a GEC is.


----------



## lighterup

I just read the Mike Holtz forum via Trentons attachment.

It seems they overwhelmingly agree that the "choking"
effect has to do with metal ferrous raceways not the
cabinet enclosure. Seems the 1/4" KO is okay for GEC
to pass through.


----------



## Going_Commando

lighterup said:


> I just read the Mike Holtz forum via Trentons attachment.
> 
> It seems they overwhelmingly agree that the "choking"
> effect has to do with metal ferrous raceways not the
> cabinet enclosure. Seems the 1/4" KO is okay for GEC
> to pass through.


The overwhelming majority are saying with others are saying here. The code article is referring to GEC's running through ferrous raceways, wireways, and pull boxes on it's way to the service, not the actual service enclosure where it is terminated.


----------



## sbrn33

Who is mike Holts? Is that the guy that asks for money at every turn?


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> I just read the Mike Holtz forum via Trentons attachment.
> 
> It seems they overwhelmingly agree that the "choking"
> effect has to do with metal ferrous raceways not the
> cabinet enclosure. Seems the 1/4" KO is okay for GEC
> to pass through.


Yet they apparently fail to define the difference the _physics_ ferromagnetism makes in either enclosure *vs.* raceway Lighter

Is it ok to run a GEC through a 1/4 " metallic raceway _without_ a bond?

How LONG of a raceway would forgo such a requirement? 24" 2.4" 0 inches?

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> Yet they apparently fail to define the difference the _physics_ ferromagnetism makes in either enclosure *vs.* raceway Lighter
> 
> Is it ok to run a GEC through a 1/4 " metallic raceway _without_ a bond?
> 
> How LONG of a raceway would forgo such a requirement? 24" 2.4" 0 inches?
> 
> ~CS~


it's not a raceway if it's within 18" in length


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> Yet they apparently fail to define the difference the _physics_ ferromagnetism makes in either enclosure *vs.* raceway Lighter
> 
> Is it ok to run a GEC through a 1/4 " metallic raceway _without_ a bond?
> 
> How LONG of a raceway would forgo such a requirement? 24" 2.4" 0 inches?
> 
> ~CS~



Steve, is an NEC grounding electrode system listed and approved for lightning protection? Answer the question.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Yet they apparently fail to define the difference the _physics_ ferromagnetism makes in either enclosure *vs.* raceway Lighter


Yet you won't bring that up in that thread, why?

Also, I will point out for the 15th time how you fail to demonstrate how a piece of PVC that the GEC enters thru changes the _physics_ of ferromagnetism...


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> it's not a raceway if it's within 18" in length


Why 18" Lighter?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

MTW said:


> Steve, is an NEC grounding electrode system listed and approved for lightning protection? Answer the question.


 I believe that would be a UL white book Q....

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> Why 18" Lighter?
> 
> ~CS~


I'm being tongue & cheek.

This is an old debate is a chase nipple a raceway or a fitting?
A fitting was once thought (not sure if it still is in newer codes
or the UL white book) as being max 18" in length.

It's probably an outdated argument


----------



## chicken steve

A little research on MT's Q>>

*Kenny Clamp® Compression Connector sizes for Separately Derived Systems, panelboards and enclosures.*

The Kenny Clamp® Compression Connector is a new alternative in bonding and grounding separately derived systems, panelboards
and enclosures. Advantages of using the Kenny Clamp Compression Connector are:

Eliminates the need for installing lugs on the frame of separately derived systems to bond the frame or to install a *main bonding
jumper from XO to the transformer can. *

Most lugs installed today don’t meet the grounding and bonding standards under *UL 467*.

Standard lugs for terminating current carrying conductors _are not listed and labeled_ for grounding connections.

A listed and labeled grounding and bonding connector under *UL 467 *“Grounding and Bonding Equipment” and *UL 486A*

“Wire Connectors and Soldering Lugs for Use with Copper Conductors”. 



~CS~


----------



## brian john

brian john said:


> So here are some very valid points regarding this issue.
> 
> 1. The GEC is seldom to never used and most residential electrodes are SHEET.
> 47 years in the trade I have investigated numerous residences where
> lightning hit the home and never noticed any issues the GEC at the panel.
> 2. I will perform a high current test to check current before and after the entry
> on a GEC.
> a. How much current?
> b. What is the setup?


Steve give me a setup test that would show if this is an issue or not.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> A little research on MT's Q>>
> 
> *Kenny Clamp® Compression Connector sizes for Separately Derived Systems, panelboards and enclosures.*
> 
> The Kenny Clamp® Compression Connector is a new alternative in bonding and grounding separately derived systems, panelboards
> and enclosures. Advantages of using the Kenny Clamp Compression Connector are:
> 
> Eliminates the need for installing lugs on the frame of separately derived systems to bond the frame or to install a *main bonding
> jumper from XO to the transformer can. *
> 
> Most lugs installed today don’t meet the grounding and bonding standards under *UL 467*.
> 
> Standard lugs for terminating current carrying conductors _are not listed and labeled_ for grounding connections.
> 
> A listed and labeled grounding and bonding connector under *UL 467 *“Grounding and Bonding Equipment” and *UL 486A*
> 
> “Wire Connectors and Soldering Lugs for Use with Copper Conductors”.
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


 Steve, this is nothing new. We’ve told you this earlier in this thread. We know that other connectors like Romex connectors are not listed for grounding and a single conductor.

That still doesn’t change the fact that there is no requirement to bond a GEC as it enters a panel


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Steve, this is nothing new. We’ve told you this earlier in this thread. We know that other connectors like Romex connectors are not listed for grounding and a single conductor.
> 
> That still doesn’t change the fact that there is no requirement to bond a GEC as it enters a panel



Hi buddy.


----------



## TOOL_5150

MTW said:


> Steve, why do you keep repeating this like a parrot? How many times do I have to explain to you that a GEC is not a lightning protection system? It has absolutely zero bearing on influencing lighting's destructive path. Have you seen an actual lighting protection system installed on a residence? Probably not, or else you would not keep bringing up this faulty line of reasoning.


Very true, ive seen lightening systems in the midwest - its totally different than a GEC


----------



## chicken steve

brian john said:


> Steve give me a setup test that would show if this is an issue or not.


I'm _not_ an EE Brian

Even if i was, how _would i know _what parameters mother nature *vs.* unbonded enclosure would equate to a detrimental choke effect?

That said ,perhaps a UL rep has pertinent knowledge pursuant to the creation of UL 467

Ergo, your query needs a higher order 

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

Navyguy said:


> In the Canadian code, there is not a definition for "enclosure", but there is one for "cabinet", "raceway", "panelboard", "service box", "splitter", etc.
> 
> So basically if I look at what they (the CEC) is saying, an enclosure is any "box" where there is some sort of "termination" or "connection" is happening; where a "raceway" is only where wires pass through (or in) and do not terminate or connect to each other.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


So how would you deal with a GEC entering an Xfomer then?

>>>>










~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

wow, this is ridiculous. i am in no way saying you have to use a kenny clamp there are other code compliant ways to do it.

for the same reason you must bond at entry, you cannot run a single phase alone through a ferrous raceway either and you have to group all the circuit conductors together in a panel. this is all code requirements and because of physics not kenny.


here is an article on inductance with surrounding ferrous material

http://www.esgroundingsolutions.com...mt-conduit-from-the-hot-wire-is-it-hyteresis/



heres an exceprt


"The reason for this is due to induction, not hysteresis. The neutral wire helps to cross cancel the magnetic fields that form in the hot wires as the current flows through the conductors. Without the neutral, you will cause inductive heating of the metal conduit. One of our engineers has actually been to a facility that routed the neutral separately from the hot wires in a high-current circuit and had heated the metal conduit support columns to the point that they actually glowed red-hot!"

it doesnt matter if the ferrous material is bonded, it has to be used as a parallel conductor.


i do not make money from selling kenny clamps, ive never even used one.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> wow, this is ridiculous. i am in no way saying you have to use a kenny clamp there are other code compliant ways to do it.


 There is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel.



> for the same reason you must bond at entry, you cannot run a single phase alone through a ferrous raceway either and you have to group all the circuit conductors together in a panel. this is all code requirements and because of physics not kenny.


 Tell me, what are the "physics" that knowingly allow you to run a GEC into a panel thru a PVC pipe without bonding it as it enters? The GEC is still going thru the metal hole, the presence of a PVC pipe between the GEC and hole is electrically invisible.



> here is an article on inductance with surrounding ferrous material
> 
> http://www.esgroundingsolutions.com...mt-conduit-from-the-hot-wire-is-it-hyteresis/
> 
> heres an exceprt


Some blog article is absolutely meaningless. The *only* thing that matters here is the NEC, which does not require a GEC to be bonded when it enters a panel.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> There is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel.
> 
> Tell me, what are the "physics" that knowingly allow you to run a GEC into a panel thru a PVC pipe without bonding it as it enters? The GEC is still going thru the metal hole, the presence of a PVC pipe between the GEC and hole is electrically invisible.
> 
> 
> Some blog article is absolutely meaningless. The *only* thing that matters here is the NEC, which does not require a GEC to be bonded when it enters a panel.



i never said you can run it into the enclosure with pvc and be compliant. and i don't believe that

the pvc/insulation is irrelevant like you said


and i would also say you are correct about not having to bond it when it enters a panel, it has to be bonded when it leaves the surrounding ferrous material, if you run it in GRC out of the panel, it does not need to be bonded when it leaves the panel just when it leaves the last ferrous surrounding material it is in

the names/labels/type for the enclosures/raceways are irrelevant, it has to be bonded when it leaves being surrounded by ferrous material


if the panel is ferrous and the raceway leaving it is ferrous, for explanation sake it is connected which because i cant think of a better way to say it, should be seen as one enclosure/raceway/ferrous surrounding material.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i never said you can run it into the enclosure with pvc and be compliant. and i don't believe that
> 
> the pvc/insulation is irrelevant like you said


OK, good. So you are only half as stupid as the other guys.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> OK, good. So you are only half as stupid as the other guys.


not gonna lie, i take that as a compliment from you to say that to me. LOL


i'll try to go back and read what the other guys are saying, don't have the time now


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> not gonna lie, i take that as a compliment from you to say that to me. LOL


You shouldn't. I truly think the fact that you don't understand what the term "for" means in the NEC article "Enclosures *for* GECs" shows a complete lack of intelligence.

Even after showing a picture, you still don't understand...












There is no room for debate, discussion, or interpretation. It is clear. A panel (that is ultimately bonded) in which a GEC terminates does not need to be bonded as the GEC enters (or exits, whatever semanatics you want to use).


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> You shouldn't. I truly think the fact that you don't understand what the term "for" means in the NEC article "Enclosures *for* GECs" shows a complete lack of intelligence.
> 
> Even after showing a picture, you still don't understand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no room for debate, discussion, or interpretation. It is clear. A panel (that is ultimately bonded) in which a GEC terminates does not need to be bonded as the GEC enters (or exits, whatever semanatics you want to use).



LMAO, you have to read the code knowing it is written by people other than you and try to know what the intent is, which if you look at your basic AC theory book it will become much clearer


your using semantics "for", the damn thing is in a ferrous enlcosure, doesnt matter why, it is.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> LMAO, you have to read the code knowing it is written by people other than you and try to know what the intent is, which if you look at your basic AC theory book it will become much clearer


 No, the code is very clear. 


> your using semantics "for", the damn thing is in a ferrous enlcosure, doesnt matter why, it is.


It completely matters, and is spelled out very clearly.

Tell me, why in the two threads over at Mike Holt's do all the code gurus agree that the GEC is not required to be bonded when it enters a panel? Why is it that ONLY you, Steve, and Telsa (who hasn't shown back up here because he realized he was wrong) think that it is required?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> No, the code is very clear.
> 
> 
> It completely matters, and is spelled out very clearly.
> 
> Tell me, why in the two threads over at Mike Holt's do all the code gurus agree that the GEC is not required to be bonded when it enters a panel? Why is it that ONLY you, Steve, and Telsa (who hasn't shown back up here because he realized he was wrong) think that it is required?


i'll look into the mike holt thing some time, but i've seen some dumb a** s*** from him and his "gurus" before

for the record i in know way insult or am trying to insult your intelligence, i think your probably a great electrician


also i am not really arguing for the sake of code, the inspectors around me pass running it through the hole and whatever creativity the guys come up with around here. im arguing because from everything i have learned, it should be done.
and that is why i read that section with bias, but even trying to read it without that perspective i believe it is a code requirement


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i'll look into the mike holt thing some time, but i've seen some dumb a** s*** from him and his "gurus" before


 Again, we are talking about *everyone* except for you 3 people, possibly 2 people at this point.



> for the record i in know way insult or am trying to insult your intelligence, i think your probably a great electrician


 Judging by your inability to understand very basic code, I wonder how you tie your shoes in the morning without assistance. 



> also i am not really arguing for the sake of code, the inspectors around me pass running it through the hole and whatever creativity the guys come up with around here. im arguing because from everything i have learned, it should be done.


 That's not what you said earlier. I have a thousand different opinions on why code is wrong, who cares? If you think the code should be changed, say it. But we are talking about code requirements is this discussion.



> and that is why i read that section with bias, but even trying to read it without that perspective i believe it is a code requirement


And we are back to you being stupid. Full circle.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Again, we are talking about *everyone* except for you 3 people, possibly 2 people at this point.
> 
> Judging by your inability to understand very basic code, I wonder how you tie your shoes in the morning without assistance.
> 
> That's not what you said earlier. I have a thousand different opinions on why code is wrong, who cares? If you think the code should be changed, say it. But we are talking about code requirements is this discussion.
> 
> 
> And we are back to you being stupid. Full circle.


good talk


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> good talk
> 
> get back out there burning peoples houses down


See? Other than hyperbole, you 3 have no leg to stand on.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Wiresmith

NEC 1968

250-92 (a)
...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...


you can look this up on nfpa free access they go back to 1968


im a f****** tripod


the people screwing with the code these days might not fully understand why this was originally put in, not everybody knows everything


unless your ground rod comes up to your meter base and clamps to it somehow, cant wait to see a picture of that


ANSI/IEEE 142, "Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems" (Green Book) states: "An inductive choke can reduce the current flow by 97%."


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> NEC 1968
> 
> 250-92 (a)
> ...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...
> 
> 
> you can look this up on nfpa free access they go back to 1968
> 
> 
> im a f****** tripod
> 
> 
> the people screwing with the code these days might not fully understand why this was originally put in, not everybody knows everything
> 
> 
> unless your ground rod comes up to your meter base and clamps to it somehow, cant wait to see a picture of that


Again I will ask what part of "metallic enclosures *for* grounding conductors" you don't understand??? I even posted an image showing exactly what an enclosure _for_ a GEC is.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Again I will ask what part of "metallic enclosures *for* grounding conductors" you don't understand??? I even posted an image showing exactly what an enclosure _for_ a GEC is.


"metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode"

so do you think if i have a big tap box say 3'x3' hoffman box butted up below the meter base with an opening in each to connect the 2 for other wires, i can run the egc down through that, poke it out of the bottom of the tap box to the rod and be okay without bonding when i exit the hoffman box?


or a trough *for* other wires


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> "metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode"


Where is that written? Under what article?


You can pull an excerpt out of any article to say anything you want, but the truth is that it only applies to that article. 

The line that you just posted only applies to Enclosures FOR GECs. Not panels, since they aren't an enclosure for GECs.


----------



## Wiresmith

trough like this *for* other wires?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Where is that written? Under what article?
> 
> 
> You can pull an excerpt out of any article to say anything you want, but the truth is that it only applies to that article.
> 
> The line that you just posted only applies to Enclosures FOR GECs. Not panels, since they aren't an enclosure for GECs.


NEC 1968

250-92 (a)
...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> There is no room for debate, discussion, or interpretation. It is clear. A panel (that is ultimately bonded) in which a GEC terminates does not need to be bonded as the GEC enters (or exits, whatever semanatics you want to use).


Kindly show us an enclosure made exclusively *FOR* , and only *FOR* housing a GEC Hax?

extra points for it listed as such 

~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

all this for bonding a GEC at one more point


----------



## chicken steve

hd13 said:


> NEC 1968
> 
> 250-92 (a)
> ...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...
> 
> 
> you can look this up on nfpa free access they go back to 1968


Nice....:thumbsup:




> ANSI/IEEE 142, "Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems" (Green Book) states: "*An inductive choke can reduce the current flow by 97%*."


ANSI/IEEE 142

Thanks, now i don't have to buy it...:thumbsup:~CS~


----------



## Dark Knight

I don't know if it's code or not and this thread hasn't persuaded me one way or the other. But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion. Whether thats code or not is irrelevant, that's serious HO grade installation to do it without a connector of some kind.


----------



## chicken steve

Dark Knight said:


> I don't know if it's code or not and this thread hasn't persuaded me one way or the other. But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion. Whether thats code or not is irrelevant, that's serious HO grade installation to do it without a connector of some kind.


Yup......:thumbsup:



> *312.5 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures.*
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article
> shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with
> 312.5(A) through (C)


~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Kindly show us an enclosure made exclusively *FOR* , and only *FOR* housing a GEC Hax?
> 
> extra points for it listed as such
> 
> ~CS~


The code doesn’t say *only* for a GEC , nor does it say that an enclosure has to be listed for use with a GEC.

Are you even an electrician?

Apparently I’m the idiot here because I’m the only one out of everyone else who is willing to try and educate you two.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> I don't know if it's code or not and this thread hasn't persuaded me one way or the other. But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion. Whether thats code or not is irrelevant, that's serious HO grade installation to do it without a connector of some kind.


 Every wire entering any box, end of discussion? You mean like Romex entering a single gang plastic box which doesn’t have any type of clamp and is completely code compliant?

Wow.


----------



## Wiresmith

:santa: whats your address HackWork i got you a box of kenny clamps for Christmas:santa:


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> The code doesn’t say *only* for a GEC , nor does it say that an enclosure has to be listed for use with a GEC.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking on the market, a product _exclusively_ manufactured *for* the pix of a *GEC* in an enclosure you keep posting
> 
> and you'll not find NRTL listings in the NEC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you even an electrician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of tenure and_ appreciative_ of detail
> 
> thx
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## lighterup

I'm 53...is it too late to start a plumbers apprenticeship?


----------



## chicken steve

_I shoulda learned to play the guitar, i should learned to play them drums_....:vs_music:~CS~:vs_music:


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Every wire entering any box, end of discussion? You mean like Romex entering a single gang plastic box which doesn’t have any type of clamp and is completely code compliant?
> 
> Wow.


Show me.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Show me.


Show you what, your ass?


----------



## brian john

Dark Knight said:


> Show me.


He gave you a perfect example.


----------



## brian john

Dark Knight said:


> Show me.


I have offered to set up a test and report the results back.

Tell me how you want to see the test performed and current level.


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> I,m just finding it so difficult to believe
> that a fault to ground , at the speed &
> extremely high voltage that it happens ,
> will "choke" at the point of entry to a cabinet
> (1/8" of steel?)..
> The fault is not traveling slow.


im not a good teacher and im not an expert on this so i may be wording some of this wrong and might confuse you more, but i'll try.

the idea behind bonding it there is reducing impedance on the GEC. 

say for instance lightning strikes a building/electrical system/whatever, the faster the electricity leaves the building and its electrical system, the less damage is done to everything. and by faster i mean almost immeasurably faster, i don't even know if milliseconds should be used to describe it.

also lightning is a really high frequency which in the scenario of not bonding on both ends the high frequency greatly increases the inductive reactance,

also lightning will find a path either way, if we provide a low impedance designated path, we reduce the potential damage done if it takes other paths, like through more electronics or more gas lines or more jumping between things and arcing


the idea is we are trying to have the lowest impedance circuit practical and a $10 part in this instance probably won't seam impractical to a reasonable person, that's a large reason why ground rods are required anyway, cost benefit analysis, it doesn't cost much and if properly installed can reduce a lot of potential damage


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> the idea is we are trying to have the lowest impedance circuit practical and a $10 part in this instance probably won't seam impractical to a reasonable person


A reasonable person admits that code doesn't require it.

A reasonable person doesn't say that something is dangerous when they can't cite a single instance of this dangerous issue happening.

When 2 people are alone in an opinion against *everyone else*, it's safe to say that they are not the reasonable ones.


----------



## Wiresmith

brian john said:


> So here are some very valid points regarding this issue.
> 
> 1. The GEC is seldom to never used and most residential electrodes are SHEET.
> 47 years in the trade I have investigated numerous residences where
> lightning hit the home and never noticed any issues the GEC at the panel.
> 2. I will perform a high current test to check current before and after the entry
> on a GEC.
> a. How much current?
> b. What is the setup?





i ask that you use the highest current your comfortable using

hook the gec up in the meterbase run it out in pvc conduit

then try with a kenny clamp

the cover closed and meter installed

if you can also measure the temp of the enclosure while doing it,run it for a little while to and initially and continually measure temperature

use Alternating Current


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Show you what, your ass?


A pic or a link of romex entering a plastic box without some kind of clamp.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> A pic or a link of romex entering a plastic box without some kind of clamp.


Great, I will prove to you something that everyone else knows...

314.17(C) Exception.











Maybe the next time you want to make a definitive statement of fact, you will find out the facts first. Good idea, right?



Dark Knight said:


> But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion.


----------



## Roger

hd13 said:


> NEC 1968
> 
> 250-92 (a)
> ...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.


Yep, that's what you have to do if you enclose the GEC in a ferrous raceway, wireway, or any ferromagnetic protection of length but that has not been questioned in this thread, in fact all agree with that.


hd13 said:


> metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...


Right again, and that has never been questioned either, Hack has posted an illustration supporting it.

The way I see it is, anybody that wants to use a connector for a GEC entering a cabinet can spend the money and have a party, those that know if a cabinet is bonded to the GEC say 1", 4", 6", 12" etc... inside the enclosure and a connector is not needed can save the money and have a code/theory correct installation.

Here is an article that may help, notice what the author says about using PVC.
http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground




Roger


----------



## Switched

Dark Knight said:


> A pic or a link of romex entering a plastic box without some kind of clamp.


These boxes do not have clamps, this may be what he is referring to...


----------



## Wiresmith

Roger said:


> Yep, that's what you have to do if you enclose the GEC in a ferrous raceway, wireway, or any ferromagnetic protection of length but that has not been questioned in this thread, in fact all agree with that. Right again, and that has never been questioned either, Hack has posted an illustration supporting it.
> 
> The way I see it is, anybody that wants to use a connector for a GEC entering a cabinet can spend the money and have a party, those that know if a cabinet is bonded to the GEC say 1", 4", 6", 12" etc... inside the enclosure and a connector is not needed can save the money and have a code/theory correct installation.
> 
> Here is an article that may help, notice what the author says about using PVC.
> http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger


lol, i posted that article in this thread already.

the GEC needs to be bonded to its ferrous enclosure when it leaves, not just bonded to it anywhere but where it leaves or else you create a choke.


----------



## Wiresmith

Dark Knight said:


> I don't know if it's code or not and this thread hasn't persuaded me one way or the other. But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion. Whether thats code or not is irrelevant, that's serious HO grade installation to do it without a connector of some kind.


 (<>)


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> lol, i posted that article in this thread already.
> 
> the GEC needs to be bonded to its ferrous enclosure when it leaves, not just bonded to it anywhere but where it leaves or else you create a choke.


Show us the code requirement for that.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Show us the code requirement for that.


i wont, dont want to, you cant make me


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i wont, dont want to, you cant make me


Exactly.


----------



## Wiresmith

hd13 said:


> nec 2017 *250.64(e)(1)* ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


not just bonded but on each end, because the property owners insurance does not want you to create a choke


----------



## Wiresmith

hd13 said:


> NEC 1968
> 
> 250-92 (a)
> ...metallic enclosures for grounding conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. metallic enclosures which are not physically continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode can be made electrically continuous by bonding each end to the grounding conductor...
> 
> 
> you can look this up on nfpa free access they go back to 1968


each end not just anywhere, because the property owners insurance dont like no chokes


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Great, I will prove to you something that everyone else knows...
> 
> 314.17(C) Exception.
> 
> 
> [iurl="http://www.electriciantalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=119210&stc=1&d=1514060956"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> 
> Maybe the next time you want to make a definitive statement of fact, you will find out the facts first. Good idea, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> But seriously, every wire entering any box should be clamped. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

HO grade. 

Besides, I never said anything definitive. You're lying.


----------



## HackWork

It's so convenient for you how you keep leaving out the title of 250.64(E)(1) _every single time_ you post it.

*(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors.*

The only thing more petty than you doing that is you having to resort to a code from 49 years ago because you can;t find a code article to support your assertion in any current code.

BTW, your 1968 code also says "metallic enclosures _*for*_ grounding conductors". And I showed you what enclosure they meant in a picture posted 15 times.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> HO grade.


 So every professional electrician here who ever installed a single gang plastic box (everyone) is doing "homeowner grade" work, huh?



> Besides, I never said anything definitive. You're lying.


Oh, so "End of discussion." after a statement of fact isn't definitive, huh?

This is amazing. It's like talking to 3rd graders...


----------



## brian john

hd13 said:


> i ask that you use the highest current your comfortable using
> 
> hook the gec up in the meterbase run it out in pvc conduit
> 
> then try with a kenny clamp
> 
> the cover closed and meter installed
> 
> if you can also measure the temp of the enclosure while doing it,run it for a little while to and initially and continually measure temperature
> 
> use Alternating Current


I can generate up to 90,000 amps but would start with something more reasonable I can easily read with CT's like 5,000-10,000.

I can take the temperature (IR camera) but (as I understand it) it is not the temperature of the enclosure it is the choke effect restricting the current (which would result in heating the enclosure but as noted that is not the issue. 

It is not about running a long time test but an instantaneous fault current, I believe the issue is the restricted current delays a circuit breaker from operating.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

So if a kenny clamp is not required is a button or 2 screw romex connector ok?


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist said:


> So if a kenny clamp is not required is a button or 2 screw romex connector ok?


They are normally accepted but not actually allowed by code since they are not listed for a single conductor.


----------



## Wiresmith

brian john said:


> It is not about running a long time test but an instantaneous fault current, I believe the issue is the restricted current delays a circuit breaker from operating.



i believe the issue is increasing impedance to earth,

250.4(A)(1)electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation

i dont no any problem with breakers


the reason i say run it a while is so you can see the effect, the enclosure might heat up pretty good and impedance may increase, some sources say lightning can be around 50KA


the temperature just might be interesting

can you do alternating current? high frequency?


dont get hurt, try it low first


----------



## chicken steve

well this is becoming interesting......:thumbsup:~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

chicken steve said:


> well this is becoming interesting......:thumbsup:~CS~


still only about bonding the GEC in one more spot


----------



## BlackHowling

The description for the Kenny clamp that chicken posted literally says they made it to save you the trouble of finding a listed grounding lug to put on the frame of a transformer when making an SDS. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Magnettica_2

Is cad welding it to the enclosure permissible?


----------



## chicken steve

Methinks you;re onto something , in the sense that 250.64E has not done the best job imparting the _basic fundamental electrical theory _ it's predicated on over a generation of code cycles hd13

I'm sure you've noted the '17 clarification (my bold)>

(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode
Conductors.
(1) General. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for
grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continu‐
ous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to
the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
ground clamp or fi tting. Ferrous metal raceways and enclosures
shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the
grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor *to
create an electrically parallel path*. Nonferrous metal raceways
and enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continu‐
ous.

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

BlackHowling said:


> The description for the Kenny clamp that chicken posted literally says they made it to save you the trouble of finding a listed grounding lug to put on the frame of a transformer when making an SDS.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


well Kenny is out to sell his clamps BH, via '_outlisting_' his competition

And most of us run flex, GEC to grounding bushings >>to XO and call it a day

But what if we ran LTMN to an Xformer (SDS) ?

Keep in mind art 250 GEC's can be run externally OR internally of a raceway/cable/ etc.


~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

Magnettica_2 said:


> Is cad welding it to the enclosure permissible?


would be to me, and would like to see a picture of that as much as a bonded bushing on pvc pipe


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Oh, so "End of discussion." after a statement of fact isn't definitive, huh?


Try statement of opinion. I said 'I don't know if its code or not but...should be...' clearly making it my opinion. Yes, its definitively my opinion. 



> This is amazing. It's like talking to 3rd graders...


Just trying to come down to your level.


----------



## BlackHowling

chicken steve said:


> well Kenny is out to sell his clamps BH, via '_outlisting_' his competition
> 
> And most of us run flex, GEC to grounding bushings >>to XO and call it a day
> 
> But what if we ran LTMN to an Xformer (SDS) ?
> 
> Keep in mind art 250 GEC's can be run externally OR internally of a raceway/cable/ etc.
> 
> 
> ~CS~


Why would you waste money on putting a ground wire in flex? Not required if #6 or larger and many installations use strain reliefs when entering the transformer case. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Try statement of opinion. I said 'I don't know if its code or not but...should be...' clearly making it my opinion. Yes, its definitively my opinion.


 So you did make a definitive statement? I see. So where is my apology for calling me a liar?

You also made another definitive statement when you said that using the box that everyone uses is "Homeowner grade". I see you conveniently edit that part out of my quote.

So you stand by that statement? Every electrician who ever did resi work and every contractor does homeowner grade work for using the standard box in a code compliant way?


----------



## Wiresmith

this thread has 5,300 views in a week, over bonding the GEC an extra time and a $3 part. and we say congress is bad. LMAO


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> this thread has 5,300 views in a week, over bonding the GEC an extra time and a $3 part. and we say congress is bad. LMAO


We are talking about doing something that only 2 people (maybe up to 4 people, but the other 2 are wavering) think is necessary.

Everyone else across 2 different electrical code forums agree it's not necessary. 

The last time I looked a Kenny clamp was $9+. But even if it were 1 cent, why would we use something that is completely unnecessary? No one has been able to cite a single instance of there being a dangerous issue by running a GEC into a panel thru a hole.

Why don't you put a plastic bushing on metal romex connectors? It might help, right? How many other unnecessary things do you suggest we do?


----------



## Roger

hd13 said:


> the GEC needs to be bonded to its ferrous enclosure when it leaves,


 And it is by mechanical means, the raceway is too if one of the methods in 250.92(B) is used, if the GEC leaves without going into a Ferromagnetic raceway nothing else is required.



hd13 said:


> not just bonded to it anywhere but where it leaves or else you create a choke.


Correct, as well as the other end and Hack has shown that many times in this thread.

The difference in this verses your example of a single phase conductor going through an enclosure is that a phase conductor is not connected to the enclosure whereas the GEC is, this makes the enclosure and GEC one component. 


Roger


----------



## Wiresmith

Roger said:


> And it is by mechanical means, the raceway is too if one of the methods in 250.92(B) is used, if the GEC leaves without going into a Ferromagnetic raceway nothing else is required.
> 
> Correct, as well as the other end and Hack has shown that many times in this thread.
> 
> The difference in this verses your example of a single phase conductor going through an enclosure is that a phase conductor is not connected to the enclosure whereas the GEC is, this makes the enclosure and GEC one component.
> 
> 
> Roger


turn your transformer off and measure resistance of your hot to the enclosure.
and my example was even the neutral, *the grounded conductor* as in bonded to ground/raceways/enclosures anything thats grounded and bonded in the system, zero ohms on a normal multimeter


----------



## Wiresmith

Roger said:


> And it is by mechanical means, the raceway is too if one of the methods in 250.92(B) is used, if the GEC leaves without going into a Ferromagnetic raceway nothing else is required.
> 
> 
> Roger



if your talking about a metal nm connector i am not refuting that

as long as its bonded there where it leaves, im not saying you have to use a kenny clamp


----------



## MTW

The best part about this is that next time I do a service, I will install the GEC through the 1/4" hole like I usually do and life will go on. Everyone else will be doing the same other than the contrarian trolls who can't properly interpret a code rule to save their life.


----------



## Wiresmith

:rockon:


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> The best part about this is that next time I do a service, I will install the GEC through the 1/4" hole like I usually do and life will go on. Everyone else will be doing the same other than the contrarian trolls who can't properly interpret a code rule to save their life.


Were you here when I was complaining about tamper proof receptacles being required? I said that there was no use, they were stupid.

Then Bob Badger cited a few sources showing thousands of instances of children getting hurt from sticking something into receptacles. So it made sense, and I never complained about it again. 

He substantiated the code requirement by citing the problem. That's something that no one here can do concerning the GEC thru a hole into a panel, even though they keep saying how bad and dangerous it is. Isn't that pathetic?


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> The code doesn’t say *only* for a GEC , nor does it say that an enclosure has to be listed for use with a GEC.
> 
> Are you even an electrician?
> 
> Apparently I’m the idiot here because I’m the only one out of everyone else who is willing to try and educate you two.


We've all tried and given up at this point, you're the only one left who is persisting. There is no point to arguing with Steve. He is literally a box of rocks.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Were you here when I was complaining about tamper proof receptacles being required? I said that there was no use, they were stupid.
> 
> Then Bob Badger cited a few sources showing thousands of instances of children getting hurt from sticking something into receptacles. So it made sense, and I never complained about it again.
> 
> He substantiated the code requirement by citing the problem. That's something that no one here can do concerning the GEC thru a hole into a panel, even though they keep saying how bad and dangerous it is. Isn't that pathetic?


for the record i wouldn't say dangerous. its more about cost/benefit


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Were you here when I was complaining about tamper proof receptacles being required? I said that there was no use, they were stupid.
> 
> Then Bob Badger cited a few sources showing thousands of instances of children getting hurt from sticking something into receptacles. So it made sense, and I never complained about it again.
> 
> He substantiated the code requirement by citing the problem. That's something that no one here can do concerning the GEC thru a hole into a panel, even though they keep saying how bad and dangerous it is. Isn't that pathetic?


I think you have this figured out, but Steve _always _takes the contrarian view on an issue, no matter what it is. It doesn't matter if he has to twist himself into a pretzel to try to justify it, he will do that no matter how stupid he looks. That is the real problem here. He is trolling us all really bad and I think it's time it stopped.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> for the record i wouldn't say dangerous. its more about cost/benefit


There is zero benefit. None. There is no issue at all other than what you made up in your head. 

What about the cost/benefit to 18 fasteners in every panel to make sure that it doesn't fall off the wall? How many other stupid things can you come up with?


----------



## chicken steve

Roger said:


> And it is by mechanical means, the raceway is too if one of the methods in 250.92(B) is used, if the GEC leaves without going into a Ferromagnetic raceway nothing else is required.
> 
> 
> 
> which two are you referring to Roger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electrical continuity at service equipment, service raceways,
> and service conductor enclosures shall be ensured by one of
> the following methods:
> 
> (1) Bonding equipment to the grounded service conductor
> in a manner provided in 250.8
> 
> (2) Connections utilizing threaded couplings or threaded
> hubs on enclosures if made up wrenchtight
> 
> (3) Threadless couplings and connectors if made up tight for
> metal raceways and metal-clad cables
> 
> (4) Other listed devices, such as bonding-type locknuts, bush‐
> ings, or bushings with bonding jumpers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference in this verses your example of a single phase conductor going through an enclosure is that a phase conductor is not connected to the enclosure whereas the GEC is, this makes the enclosure and GEC one component.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright, then why we we enter an SDS Xformer do we bond the GEC to it's enclosure on the way to X0 ,when most Xformers have a bond strap from X0 to it's shell?
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## chicken steve

hd13 said:


> this thread has 5,300 views in a week, over bonding the GEC an extra time and a $3 part. and we say congress is bad. LMAO


We're _qualified_ for Congress now? 

Lord, how the mighty here have fallen! ~CS~


----------



## HackWork

******s


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> How many other stupid things can you come up with?


 
i dont think you should be aloud to use nm in a wood structure

do you drive 2 ground rods and space them apart twice the length of the longest rod (250.53(A)(3) informational note)(not just 6' apart)


ground fault alarm relays on mains could save lives(more for industrial and civil work)


don't fish cables or flex and use cut-in boxes


use direct burial connectors in handholes, preferably don't splice below grade


use polywater zipseal instead of duct seal in conduits for condensation


when you install a new circuit and energize it, take a current reading on your EGC and make sure your neutral and hot both have same amount of current on them (take readings at ocpd)


try not to bring conduits into the top of anything other than pull boxes


use compression instead of mechanical whenever practical, you can even go nuclear and whenever possible cadweld your splices


cadweld grounding connections


don't share or downsize neutrals


are you even writing this stuff down


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> i dont think you should be aloud to use nm in a wood structure



Why are you incapable of writing and spelling at an elementary school level?


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Why are you incapable of writing and spelling at an elementary school level?


You aren't aloud to talk to him like that!


----------



## emtnut

WoW 381 posts 

I didn't read them all yet :001_huh: ... whatcha all talkin' 'bout ?


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Why are you incapable of writing and spelling at an elementary school level?


because i'm not turning this in to my fifth grade teacher to be graded


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> WoW 381 posts
> 
> I didn't read them all yet :001_huh: ... whatcha all talkin' 'bout ?


bonding the egc an extra time and a $3 fitting, literacy, semantics,


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> because i'm not turning this in to my fifth grade teacher to be graded


Let me guess - you're a millenial.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> How many other stupid things can you come up with?





hd13 said:


> i don't think you should be aloud to use nm in a wood structure
> 
> do you drive 2 ground rods and space them apart twice the length of the longest rod (250.53(A)(3) informational note)(not just 6' apart)
> 
> 
> ground fault alarm relays on mains could save lives(more for industrial and civil work)
> 
> 
> don't fish cables or flex and use cut-in boxes
> 
> 
> use direct burial connectors in handholes, preferably don't splice below grade
> 
> 
> use polywater zipseal instead of duct seal in conduits for condensation
> 
> 
> when you install a new circuit and energize it, take a current reading on your EGC and make sure your neutral and hot both have same amount of current on them (take readings at ocpd)
> 
> 
> try not to bring conduits into the top of anything other than pull boxes
> 
> 
> use compression instead of mechanical whenever practical, you can even go nuclear and whenever possible cadweld your splices
> 
> 
> cadweld grounding connections
> 
> 
> don't share or downsize neutrals
> 
> 
> are you even writing this stuff down


 i waste a lot of money


----------



## emtnut

OK, I'm going WAYYYYYYY back to when I took physics in school.

Before I go on, it was physics for electrical, so don't come back with any heavy duty physics arguments with me :thumbsup:

Everything seems to have an analogy to plumbing ... because even a 2 year old can understand it :yes: :jester:

OK, so take a 10' long 1/2" metal conduit, and attach a 1/2" water pipe to it, with let's say 200psi. Think the conduit will 'Choke' the flow ?? :yes:

Now take a 1/4" panel opening, and attach a 1/4" water pipe at 200psi. Think the opening will 'Choke' the flow ?? :no:


----------



## HackWork

I want to choke a chicken.


----------



## Switched

So.... Spank the Monkey or Choke the Chicken?


----------



## emtnut

Monkeys and Chickens .. OK, But Please, leave the carrot out of this one :shifty:


----------



## lighterup

https://youtu.be/YSPaLiTBL3E?t=62


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> You aren't aloud to talk to him like that!


Hi buddy.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Hi buddy.


:no:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> :no:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> :no:


:yes:


----------



## Magnettica_2

Heyyyyy ..... how u doin? 

Seems nothings changed around these parts. Going back n forth about a Kenny clamp. LMAO. Add me to the list of professionals who use the 1/4" hole on the enclosure and calls it a day. I'm at the bank while these jackasses are still reading the literature with that product.


----------



## eddy current

brian john said:


> I can generate up to 90,000 amps but would start with something more reasonable I can easily read with CT's like 5,000-10,000.
> 
> I can take the temperature (IR camera) but (as I understand it) it is not the temperature of the enclosure it is the choke effect restricting the current (which would result in heating the enclosure but as noted that is not the issue.
> 
> It is not about running a long time test but an instantaneous fault current, I believe the issue is the restricted current delays a circuit breaker from operating.


After you do the test with a bonded enclosure,could you create an actual choke using a short piece of conduit and show the difference?


----------



## cdslotz

wow...the top four threads here are about grounding....


----------



## chicken steve

The most difficult code article, as well as concept....

~CS~


----------



## TOOL_5150

hd13 said:


> trough like this *for* other wires?


damn, thats an ugly install


----------



## TOOL_5150

brian john said:


> I have offered to set up a test and report the results back.
> 
> Tell me how you want to see the test performed and current level.


I would really like to see the choke effect in action. 

Also, is the choke effect similar to inductive heating? Kinda seems like they are similar.


----------



## lighterup

TOOL_5150 said:


> damn, thats an ugly install


:thumbup:Yeah , thought the same thing


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> i dont think you should be aloud to use nm in a wood structure
> 
> do you drive 2 ground rods and space them apart twice the length of the longest rod (250.53(A)(3) informational note)(not just 6' apart)
> 
> 
> ground fault alarm relays on mains could save lives(more for industrial and civil work)
> 
> 
> don't fish cables or flex and use cut-in boxes
> 
> 
> use direct burial connectors in handholes, preferably don't splice below grade
> 
> 
> use polywater zipseal instead of duct seal in conduits for condensation
> 
> 
> when you install a new circuit and energize it, take a current reading on your EGC and make sure your neutral and hot both have same amount of current on them (take readings at ocpd)
> 
> 
> try not to bring conduits into the top of anything other than pull boxes
> 
> 
> use compression instead of mechanical whenever practical, you can even go nuclear and whenever possible cadweld your splices
> 
> 
> cadweld grounding connections
> 
> 
> don't share or downsize neutrals
> 
> 
> are you even writing this stuff down


It's clear you're an employee and not a business owner of any kind.


----------



## chicken steve

As are _you_ MT

So what does that have to do with the OP?

~CS~


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> As are _you_ MT
> 
> So what does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> ~CS~


Get back to me when you aren't seething with rage. :thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork

Stephen, Would you like to be my buddy?


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> As are _you_ MT
> 
> So what does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> ~CS~


The topic has been beaten to death. It's only you and a few others who are still being contrarian. Most of us have the issue settled in our minds and know it's not an NEC violation. So I reserve the right to comment on other things in the thread. If you don't like that, too bad. :thumbsup:


----------



## electricalwiz

I bring the ground through the 1/4" hole with a piece of romex in a romex connector or thru the same connector as the as the SEU

I always wondered who bought those Kenny Clamps


----------



## lighterup

I still have not finished that 200 amp service. The 
excavator never showed up

But when I do , I'll photo it with the little doohicky
inter-sytem bonding gadget with the 1/2" KO that
bonds to the panel board / GEC passes through 
the center of it and on it's way to the bonding bar 
in the panel.

I'll ask my inspector if it were necessary.

I know ...what the inspector says and what the NEC 
says & all that...:thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve

More than likely it'll be an entirely new consideration to your AHJ Lighter

Which does not make him (or anyone else) less valid in this trade

What does _invalidate _us as professionals, is to blow it off with lame excuses such as 'I've done it that way for XX years"


~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> More than likely it'll be an entirely new consideration to your AHJ Lighter
> 
> Which does not make him (or anyone else) less valid in this trade
> 
> What does _invalidate _us as professionals, is to blow it off with lame excuses such as 'I've done it that way for XX years"
> 
> 
> ~CS~


My curiosity is peeked. The AHJ electrical inspector here (I am
working in a jurisdiction that I also reside in , so I know them)
is pretty much on the ball with knowing the newest codes irrespective
of what we've been doing in the past.

I'll say modestly , 25% of code changes are learned from my
code classes. Another 25% are from me reading the code book
and catching them that way ...30% are from the AHJ telling me
about it.

The last 20% ...i probably am already trying to learn the next 
evolving code book , so I never learn it and start all over again.


----------



## chicken steve

Relearning is hardest , for me and evidently for many others here

All choke effect aside, one would assume any savvy AHJ to at least address the following>>>



> *312.5* Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and *Meter Socket Enclosures.*
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article
> shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with
> 312.5(A) through (C).
> 
> (A) Openings to Be Closed. *Openings through which
> conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner.*
> 
> 
> 110.3(B) Installation and Use. *Listed or labeled equipment shall be
> installed and used* in accordance with any instructions included
> in the listing or labeling.


~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Relearning is hardest , for me and evidently for many others here


 Nope, we have nothing to "relearn". The code is clear to everyone except you and 1 other person, maybe 2 others. 



> All choke effect aside, one would assume any savvy AHJ to at least address the following>>>


The hole is small enough to accept only the wire, it doesn't need to be closed any further. And we ARE installing it according to the listing, myself and another person proved that in this thread with Square D's listing specifically saying that the 5/16" hole is for the grounding conductor.


----------



## chicken steve

From: *Chicken Electric *
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:10 PM
To: *Rick Holbrook Milbank Tech support*
Subject: Technical Question for you



Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook
My name is Steve , I'm a Vermont electrician with a question about Milbank meters and/or enclosures I'm hoping you can help me with.

It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for

Some say it's for the GEC (Grounding Electrode conductor)* , usually a bare #6 or #4 copper wire to simply run through

However, we are finding this is not to code, the* NEC passage(s) below being applicable

Can you unfuzz me please? Thank you for your time
~Steve *Vermont Electrician

From: *Rick Holbrook Milbank Tech support*
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:04 PM
Subject: FW: Technical Question for you

*
Hi Steve,
The ¼” KO’s are for water drainage only.*

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

I have never brought a grounding conductor into a meter pan and never will. We were very clear the first time you posted that email and we refuted your premise.


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> From: *Chicken Electric *
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:10 PM
> To: *Rick Holbrook Milbank Tech support*
> Subject: Technical Question for you
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook
> My name is Steve , I'm a Vermont electrician with a question about Milbank meters and/or enclosures I'm hoping you can help me with.
> 
> It would appear there is a dispute in just what the 1/4" knockouts on the bottom of your meters are really for
> 
> Some say it's for the GEC (Grounding Electrode conductor)* , usually a bare #6 or #4 copper wire to simply run through
> 
> However, we are finding this is not to code, the* NEC passage(s) below being applicable
> 
> Can you unfuzz me please? Thank you for your time
> ~Steve *Vermont Electrician
> 
> From: *Rick Holbrook Milbank Tech support*
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:04 PM
> Subject: FW: Technical Question for you
> 
> *
> Hi Steve,
> The ¼” KO’s are for water drainage only.*
> 
> ~CS~


The fact remains the NEC still does not require that bare GEC to be bonded to enclosure no matter how much you insist that it does.


----------



## trentonmakes

But it fits his theory!

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

By the way, I believe that the milbank representative is wrong. As a 3ar enclosure there are already weep holes built into the back corners or other areas. It is not reliant on opening knock outs to drain water, nor are weep holes such a large size That they could let insects into.


----------



## MTW

Steve, you just got hammered really bad over at Holt's by several members, myself included. Do you have any other nonsense you can post over there?


----------



## Switched

You typically have to knock out that 1/4" hole, so how would that be for drainage?


----------



## HackWork

Switched said:


> You typically have to knock out that 1/4" hole, so how would that be for drainage?


That's exactly what I am saying. Plus, the one in the center of a 1/2" KO is usually much bigger than 1/4".

Furthermore, I am curious why Steve emailed his question specifically to "Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook"...?


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> That's exactly what I am saying. Plus, the one in the center of a 1/2" KO is usually much bigger than 1/4".
> 
> Furthermore, I am curious why Steve emailed his question specifically to "Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook"...?


He likes to pretend he is an expert at codes and electrical work. After the very first time I mocked him endlessly for paying a " membership fee" and then getting a card in the mail stating he was now a certified electrical inspector from the iaei.org, something anybody can get once they send in the dough, he has gone insane turning his own fantasy into his reality. The very same sort of nonsense that happens when some drip volunteers with the local volunteer fire dept, and then portray's himself as a real first responder ambulance guy, when in fact mostly he just goes to once a month meetings where everybody drinks beer and gets drunk.


----------



## Southeast Power

telsa said:


> Per the NEC, the GEC has to be BONDED when it passes through a ferrous enclosure.
> 
> This was detailed - by me - in a thread less than two-weeks ago.
> 
> And, you can't bond with plastic.
> 
> Two-screw Romex// MC connectors are NOT listed for this application, BTW.
> 
> I know, I know, they are commonly thrown at the 'problem.'
> 
> &&&
> 
> But hey, as long as your AHJ is letting you get by... why obey the NEC ?
> 
> The danger created only erupts when fault conditions fire off, anyway.
> 
> Until then, everything works perfectly.
> 
> Hey, that's the same logic as every DIY// handy man out there.


Maybe that's why our approved meter cans are aluminum.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> Furthermore, I am curious why Steve emailed his question specifically to "Dear Rick & Cathy Holbrook"...?


Holbrook are the closest Milbank reps to me

There are plenty more, if you'd like to ask the same question i did

Milbank in NJ

you're _welcome_ Hax

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Holbrook are the closest Milbank reps to me
> 
> There are plenty more, if you'd like to ask the same question i did
> 
> Milbank in NJ
> 
> you're _welcome_ Hax
> 
> ~CS~


Oh, so you asked a regional salesman and his wife


----------



## MTW

Steve, how many more times do I have to put the smack down on you at Holt's? It's not like you're going to find anyone there to agree with your insane position.


----------



## Sblk55

Hi all, this has been very in lighting and entertaining. Hack may I ask, in the illustration you posted, the first pipe coming into the raceway they bond with a bonding bushing.
On the pipe leaving the raceway the bond the far end with a ground clamp.Is that only to show different ways to bond? IE coud you use a bonding bushing on that end instead? Or becouse it is open ended you need to use a clamp?

Steve


----------



## mgraw

This is from a GE meter publication. Bold by me.

Ringless meter cover
Revised catalog number and ground labels
Latches and Hasps changed to Stainless
Mounting bosses moved toward corners of enclosure
*9/32” ground wire hole K/O in bottom*
Single latch centrally located hasp on Meter cover


----------



## chicken steve

This is commentary from>> Grounding & Bonding via '11 NEC




> The effectiveness of a grounding electrode is significantly reduced if a ferrous metal raceway containing a GEC isn't bonded to the GEC at each end. This is because a single conductor carrying high-frequency induced lightning current in a ferrous raceway causes the raceway to act as an inductor. That severely limits (chokes) the current flow through the GEC. *ANSI/IEEE 142,* *"Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems" (Green Book) states: "An inductive choke can reduce the current flow by 97%*."


----------



## mgraw

chicken steve said:


> This is commentary from>> Grounding & Bonding via '11 NEC


You do realize that section was talking about ferrous metal conduit being used to protect the GEC.


----------



## MTW

Lots of talking in circles but still no code rule from the pro-Kenny clamp crowd.


----------



## chicken steve

mgraw said:


> You do realize that section was talking about ferrous metal conduit being used to protect the GEC.


Yes, which 250.64 includes _enclosures_ Mgraw

The _intent_ of the code being the _mitigation_ of any choke effect 

According to IEEE142, lightning strikes are anywhere from 44KV to 270KV

With that in mind , passing through ferrous metal of _any_ length should rate concern

thx

~CS~


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> Yes, which 250.64 includes _enclosures_ Mgraw
> 
> The _intent_ of the code being the _mitigation_ of any choke effect
> 
> According to IEEE142, lightning strikes are anywhere from 44KV to 270KV
> 
> With that in mind , passing through ferrous metal of _any_ length should rate concern
> 
> thx
> 
> ~CS~


Steve, do you think that if you keep repeating the same stuff over and over that it gives validity to your argument? You've literally recycled that same argument a dozen times already in the same thread.


----------



## chicken steve

Actually i just posted _new_ info MT, i understand if you're too busy to _read_ it today
:whistling2:
~CS~


----------



## trentonmakes

mgraw said:


> This is from a GE meter publication. Bold by me.
> 
> Ringless meter cover
> Revised catalog number and ground labels
> Latches and Hasps changed to Stainless
> Mounting bosses moved toward corners of enclosure
> *9/32” ground wire hole K/O in bottom*
> Single latch centrally located hasp on Meter cover


Manufacturer trumps code Steve!

Merry CHRISTMAS!!

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> Actually i just posted _new_ info MT, i understand if you're too busy to _read_ it today
> :whistling2:
> ~CS~


An IEEE study is not a code rule. Try again.


----------



## sbrn33

I think what stevie does not get is that there is a huge difference between passing through and terminated in. At least as far as the code and common sense goes.


----------



## chicken steve

trentonmakes said:


> Manufacturer trumps code Steve!
> 
> Merry CHRISTMAS!!
> 
> Texting and Driving


The manufacturer is merely pointing out an entry, they make no more claims than '_GEC goes here_' , they do *NOT* make any claims of running the GEC freely through it, nor do they openly insist they trump any code pursuant to it's usage>>>>



> 312.5 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures.
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article
> shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with
> 312.5(A) through (C).
> (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which
> conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner.


~CS~


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> The manufacturer is merely pointing out an entry, they make no more claims than '_GEC goes here_' , they do *NOT* make any claims of running the GEC freely through it, nor do they openly insist they trump any code pursuant to it's usage>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


Just a quick question - why can't you figure out something as simple as where to use "its" and "it's" properly?


----------



## chicken steve

Do we have a code and/or code related issue folks?


*250.4(A)(1)* Electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limited the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to the earth during normal operation. ( Listed Fittings will limit sideflash NFPA 780 Lightning Protection)

• *250.8 *Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment Grounding and bonding conductors are required to be installed with a listed fitting.

• *250.64(B)* Securing and Protection from Physical Damage
Provides proper strain relief required by the UL/ANSI Standards 
UL 467 Grounding and Bonding and UL 486A for Connectors, see
Annex A, NEC. 

• *250.64(E)* Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors
Using a rigid coupling and a Kenny clamp®, one can bond both ends of a raceway without bending the conductor through a lug connected to a bond bushing.

• *300.15* Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings – Where Required Fittings and conductors shall be used for the specific wiring method for which they are designed.

• *312.5(A)* Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter cabinets, cutout boxes and meter enclosures shall be adequately closed. 

~CS~


----------



## brian john

chicken steve said:


> Do we have a code and/or code related issue folks?
> 
> 
> *250.4(A)(1)* Electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limited the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to the earth during normal operation. ( Listed Fittings will limit sideflash NFPA 780 Lightning Protection)
> 
> • *250.8 *Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment Grounding and bonding conductors are required to be installed with a listed fitting.
> 
> • *250.64(B)* Securing and Protection from Physical Damage
> Provides proper strain relief required by the UL/ANSI Standards
> UL 467 Grounding and Bonding and UL 486A for Connectors, see
> Annex A, NEC.
> 
> _• *250.64(E)* Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors
> Using a rigid coupling and a Kenny clamp®, one can bond both ends of a raceway without bending the conductor through a lug connected to a bond bushing._
> 
> • *300.15* Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings – Where Required Fittings and conductors shall be used for the specific wiring method for which they are designed.
> 
> *• 312.5(A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter cabinets, cutout boxes and meter enclosures shall be adequately closed.*
> 
> ~CS~


_That the NEC references a Kenny Clamp is not only disgusting but shows how safety has been sold out for the promotion of manufactures, YOU of all people should be leading a charge against this type of bull sheet._

*That should not even part of this discussion how is a 1/4" hole with a conductor passing through it even an issue? There is barely 1/32" around the conductor?*


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> Do we have a code and/or code related issue folks?
> 
> 
> *250.4(A)(1)* Electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limited the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to the earth during normal operation. ( Listed Fittings will limit sideflash NFPA 780 Lightning Protection)
> 
> • *250.8 *Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment Grounding and bonding conductors are required to be installed with a listed fitting.
> 
> • *250.64(B)* Securing and Protection from Physical Damage
> Provides proper strain relief required by the UL/ANSI Standards
> UL 467 Grounding and Bonding and UL 486A for Connectors, see
> Annex A, NEC.
> 
> • *250.64(E)* Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors
> Using a rigid coupling and a Kenny clamp®, one can bond both ends of a raceway without bending the conductor through a lug connected to a bond bushing.
> 
> • *300.15* Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings – Where Required Fittings and conductors shall be used for the specific wiring method for which they are designed.
> 
> • *312.5(A)* Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter cabinets, cutout boxes and meter enclosures shall be adequately closed.
> 
> ~CS~


I know you keep patting yourself on the back, thinking you've hit a grand slam with these code references. But none of them require a bare GEC to be bonded to an enclosure upon entry.


----------



## MTW

brian john said:


> _That the NEC references a Kenny Clamp is not only disgusting but shows how safety has been sold out for the promotion of manufactures, YOU of all people should be leading a charge against this type of bull sheet._


_

_It sounds like he's quoting the handbook or some other commentary, which immediately disqualifies it from credibility. 

*



That should not even part of this discussion how is a 1/4" hole with a conductor passing through it even an issue? There is barely 1/32" around the conductor?

Click to expand...

*It's not an issue, but some people just act like normal human beings. :no:


----------



## HackWork

brian john said:


> _*That the NEC references a Kenny Clamp* is not only disgusting but shows how safety has been sold out for the promotion of manufactures, YOU of all people should be leading a charge against this type of bull sheet._


The NEC does NOT reference a Kenny Clamp, please don't let Steve fool you. He is trying to confuse the issue, but the truth is that the text he copied and pasted is literally from Kenny Clamp's product page: 
http://www.mwelectricmfg.com/KennyClamp.html


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> The NEC does NOT reference a Kenny Clamp, please don't let Steve fool you. He is trying to confuse the issue, but the truth is that the text he copied and pasted is literally from Kenny Clamp's product page:
> http://www.mwelectricmfg.com/KennyClamp.html


Wow, just wow. That is a good catch. :thumbsup:

He literally had to stoop to the level of copying and pasting non-applicable codes off the manufacturers website. I'm dumbfounded how stupid that is. :blink:


----------



## HackWork

I think after this latest stunt Steve should be banned. Meadow got banned for much less.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I think after this latest stunt Steve should be banned. Meadow got banned for much less.



I agree. He's using manufacturer propaganda and code rules that don't even apply.

I wonder how he will try to weasel his way out this latest stunt.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

I actually just looked at the Kenny clamp website and the reference to 250. 8

Which says connections need to be made by listed means. The Romex connectors are not listed like people have said before. Hope something in the code get changed so its clear to what is acceptable.


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist, the code is already very clear.


----------



## MTW

Notice he didn't try to pull that stunt over at MH. Not that he's gaining any headway over there anyway.


----------



## chicken steve

brian john said:


> _That the NEC references a Kenny Clamp is not only disgusting but shows how safety has been sold out for the promotion of manufactures, YOU of all people should be leading a charge against this type of bull sheet._
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your ,or anyone else's , _moral _outrage Brian, write an ROP if you're that PO'd,looks like it might have to be a good 1/2 dz to tank the issue, good luck pal....
> 
> I've posted multiple codes , they are all NEC , good luck _weasling_ around all of them
> 
> thank you Kenny:thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That should not even part of this discussion how is a 1/4" hole with a conductor passing through it even an issue? There is barely 1/32" around the conductor?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as shown the choke effect may be a _very high percentage_ doing so
> 
> the _physics _of electricity at _millions _of volts, or 270000amps may ,in fact, increase the hazards of that 1/32" to a potential bomb
> 
> Isn't that somewhat your area of expertise?
> 
> Or are we on holiday _vaca_ here?
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## chicken steve

ElectricalArtist said:


> I actually just looked at the Kenny clamp website and the reference to* 250. 8*
> 
> Which says connections need to be made by listed means. The Romex connectors are not listed like people have said before. Hope something in the code get changed so its clear to what is acceptable.


Apparently that was an '11 change 

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> I've posted multiple codes , they are all NEC , good luck _weasling_ around all of them


 I think it's safe to say that *everyone* agrees on 2 thinks:

A) That you did *NOT* post any code that supports your assertion that the GEC has to be bonded as it enters a panel.
B) That it's _you_, not Brian John, who is _weaseling_ around code here.

You have 2 separate forums full of people telling you that you are wrong. Your ONLY substantiation to your outrageous claims is a few words from some idiot customer service rep and the advertising of a product that everyone knows is a scam.

Telsa, your original support, knows that he was wrong and hasn't come back. He is smart enough to save face. That hd12 guy has also most likely realized how he was wrong, because he hasn't come back either. Once again you are alone, you against the evil world. _Saving lives_ in your delusions of grandeur.


----------



## chicken steve

Repeatedly presenting yourself as a _completely unsubstantiated_ contrarian does not a debate win lad....
:no::no::no::no:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Repeatedly presenting yourself as a _completely unsubstantiated_ contrarian does not a debate win lad....
> :no::no::no::no:
> ~CS~


I have 100% substantiation. The code is clear, everyone agrees.

The words you just used to describe me actually describe you much better, and you know it. You are all alone fighting the world (contrarian) without a single bit of code to support your argument (unsubstantiated). 

It's simply _*idiotic*_ for you to call me a contrarian in this instance in which all of my posts agree with 99.999999999% of the world.

This is why I call you a joke. Clown shoes.


----------



## chicken steve

MTW said:


> Notice he didn't try to pull that stunt over at MH. Not that he's gaining any headway over there anyway.












:thumbsup:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> :thumbsup:
> ~CS~


Thanks for posting an image that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and doesn't substantiate anything that you said. And thanks for the self righteous ":thumbsup:" afterwards, it really shows what level you are operating on.


----------



## chicken steve

Buy a code book & learn to use it lad....~CS~:no:


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Buy a code book & learn to use it lad....~CS~:no:


There you go again, showing pure stupidity.

Since everyone agrees that the NEC doesn't require you to bond the GEC as it enters a panel, your statement of "_Buy a code book & learn to use it lad_" is for every single one of them? Basically, everyone but you needs to learn how to read the code, you are the only person who currently owns a code book and knows how to use it?

Do you not see how much of a narcissistic fool you make yourself look like?


----------



## manchestersparky

I like how the Kenny clamp manufacture says you can use a Kenny clamp and a rigid coupling on the ends of a raceway... 
He is pushing the listing issue yet he encourages us to violate the listing of the rigid coupling. The white book says that a rigid coupling is only listed to e used with rigid conduit.


----------



## brian john

chicken steve said:


> brian john said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your ,or anyone else's , _moral _outrage Brian, write an ROP if you're that PO'd,looks like it might have to be a good 1/2 dz to tank the issue, good luck pal....
> 
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> Steve my point was and is I DO NOT CARE about your possible indignation, I without checking the NEC assumed you posted from the NEC and therefore you were trying to pull a fast one to prove your point with lazy F's like me that did not bother to fact check your post.
> 
> SHAME ON ME, I should have known better for two reasons it was a post from a Chicken and I should always fact check anything regarding the code because so many electricians (ME INCLUDED) misinterpret the NEC as it appears you have here.
Click to expand...


----------



## chicken steve

manchestersparky said:


> I like how the Kenny clamp manufacture says you can use a Kenny clamp and a rigid coupling on the ends of a raceway...
> He is pushing the listing issue yet he encourages us to violate the listing of the rigid coupling. The white book says that a rigid coupling is only listed to e used with rigid conduit.


Very interesting Manchester, glad to see posters do a little digging here :thumbsup: ~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

brian john said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve my point was and is I DO NOT CARE about your possible indignation, I without checking the NEC assumed you posted from the NEC and therefore you were trying to pull a fast one to prove your point with lazy F's like me that did not bother to fact check your post.
> 
> SHAME ON ME, I should have known better for two reasons it was a post from a Chicken and I should always fact check anything regarding the code because so many electricians (ME INCLUDED) misinterpret the NEC as it appears you have here.
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel i've posted inapplicable or incorrect NEC, you're free to correct me Brian
> 
> Otherwise, please pursue your hissy fits in '_controvertial'_ where they belong
> 
> 
> thx
> :thumbsup:
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> If you feel i've posted inapplicable or incorrect NEC, you're free to correct me Brian


Everyone has done that exact thing thruout the entire thread.


----------



## sbrn33

Steve should be banned for posting incorrect nonsense.


----------



## matt1124

sbrn33 said:


> Steve should be banned for posting incorrect nonsense.


So are we bringing this to a vote thread?


----------



## chicken steve

Do i get one ph call to my lawyer? 

Or does the NEC have a 1-800-ILLITERATE #

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Do i get one ph call to my lawyer?
> 
> Or does the NEC have a 1-800-ILLITERATE #
> 
> ~CS~


It’s not funny, Steve. You're knowingly giving out bad cold advice.


----------



## chicken steve

Is that a Kenny clamp in your pocket, or are you just glad to read me Hax? :thumbup:~CS~:whistling2:


----------



## Going_Commando

Hey, look! It's page 24, and Steve is still wrong!


----------



## chicken steve

Were that true, i would have been shown an enclosure _listed_ for bare entry of a GEC via *250.8 (A) (8) * a good 20 pages ago Commando.

Still waiting......:whistling2:~CS~:thumbup:


----------



## MTW

Steve, I strongly suggest you get familiar with Charlie's Rule for reading the NEC. It simply does not say what your think it says or want it to say. It says what it says and it's not anywhere close to what you think or the Kenny clamp people think it says.


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> :thumbsup:
> ~CS~


Congratulations, you found a graphic with a bonding device in it. Relevance? It certainly doesn't represent the majority of opinions on Mike's forum.


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> and as shown the choke effect may be a _very high percentage_ doing so
> 
> the _physics _of electricity at _millions _of volts, or 270000amps may ,in fact, increase the hazards of that 1/32" to a potential bomb
> 
> Isn't that somewhat your area of expertise?
> 
> Or are we on holiday _vaca_ here?
> 
> ~CS~


So you've recycled the lightning strike argument for the 100th time in the same thread. Do you remember all the times you posted that argument before, or were you hammered every time? 

Well in case you forgot, an NEC GEC is not a lightning protection system and has no value in protecting a structure against lightning strikes. You need a real LPS for that. Whether the GEC is bonded to a piece of sheet metal or not is completely irrelevant in a lightning strike. A direct hit on the service will destroy it no matter what unless it's supplemented by attachment to an actual LPS.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Were that true, i would have been shown an enclosure _listed_ for bare entry of a GEC via *250.8 (A) (8) * a good 20 pages ago Commando.
> 
> Still waiting......:whistling2:~CS~:thumbup:


A) Whether a manufacturer makes a product or not does NOT negate the *FACT* that there is no NEC requirement to bond a GEC as it enters a panel.

B) I showed you where Square D specifically cites the small hole as being for the GEC. THe image was also reposted on Mike Holt's.

Funny how you conveniently ignore those facts.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Do you not see how much of a narcissistic fool you make yourself look like?


I hope he continues on this path. It will further undermine what very little credibility he has left.


----------



## macmikeman

But, but , but, he has a certification that puts him on par with the better AHJ's. He said so................


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> But, but , but, he has a certification that puts him on par with the better AHJ's. He said so................


I can pay money right now to get the same certification.

But I already have a big enough penis and plenty of self esteem, so I don't need to waste money like that.


----------



## chicken steve

chicken steve said:


> Were that true, i would have been shown an enclosure _listed_ for bare entry of a GEC via *250.8 (A) (8) * a good 20 pages ago Commando.
> 
> *Still waiting*......:whistling2:~CS~:thumbup:


:yes::yes::yes:










~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> :yes::yes::yes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


I already refuted that post you made.


----------



## HackWork

But of course, refuting what Steve says is so easy that we can do it in multiple different ways. Let me do it another way:

The article you think helps you, 250.8(A)(8)


> 250.8 Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment.
> (A) Permitted Methods. Equipment grounding conductors,
> *grounding electrode conductors*, and bonding jumpers
> *shall be connected by one or more of the following means*:
> (1) Listed pressure connectors
> *(2) Terminal bars*
> (3) Pressure connectors listed as grounding and bonding
> equipment
> (4) Exothermic welding process
> (5) Machine screw-type fasteners that engage not less than
> two threads or are secured with a nut
> (6) Thread-forming machine screws that engage not less
> than two threads in the enclosure
> *(7) Connections that are part of a listed assembly*
> (8) Other listed means


The GEC connects to the neutral terminal bar inside of the panel, which is part of a listed assembly. Done. Refuted. Choking on that popcorn, huh?


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> But of course, refuting what Steve says is so easy that we can do it in multiple different ways. Let me do it another way:
> 
> The article you think helps you, 250.8(A)(8)
> 
> 
> The GEC connects to the neutral terminal bar inside of the panel, which is part of a listed assembly. Done. Refuted. Choking on that popcorn, huh?



I already told him multiple times he is taking that section completely out of context but he ignored it, as usual.


----------



## macmikeman

What would be real cool is to get ahold of the NEC BROWN BOOK for the last few cycles, that is the book of all the pass / fail on code proposals and substantiation and find out how many times the CMP'S rejected Mr. Kenny and his clamp and what they had to say about it.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> I already told him multiple times he is taking that section completely out of context but he ignored it, as usual.


As usual he is trying to cloud the issue by using "250.8(A)(8) Other listed means.". But that doesn't work because the GEC is connected to the neutral bar, which we all know is a listed assembly (250.8(A)(7)).


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> As usual he is trying to cloud the issue by using "250.8(A)(8) Other listed means.". But that doesn't work because the GEC is connected to the neutral bar, which we all know is a listed assembly (250.8(A)(7)).


He is a joke. Clown shoes.


----------



## trentonmakes

Texting and Driving


----------



## lighterup

trentonmakes said:


> Texting and Driving


The GEC should be strapped...
Can I use an MC 1 hole strap for that?:shutup:


----------



## lighterup

Mean while , back at the ranch...


----------



## MTW

Steve, it's quite clear you need a break from the forums for a while.


----------



## MTW

Hey Steve, choke on this one:



Milbank_Marissa said:


> From the engineering department: "We have corner notches in the bottoms to drain water. The 1/4" KO is for the grounding wire."


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## HackWork

So now we have both Square D and Milbank saying that their 1/4" and 5/16" holes are for the grounding conductor.

Steve said he asked many manufacturers, why have 2 confirmed it for me but none for him? $50 says that he heard from many of them but it wasn't supporting his side so he never posted it.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> So now we have both Square D and Milbank saying that their 1/4" and 5/16" holes are for the grounding conductor.
> 
> Steve said he asked many manufacturers, why have 2 confirmed it for me but none for him? $50 says that he heard from many of them but it wasn't supporting his side so he never posted it.


Steve asked a Milbank rep that covers New England only, there are many others that cover territories across the whole US. But now we have just heard from the Milbank headquarters directly. I really doubt he had anything in the first place, he was just bluffing.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Steve asked a Milbank rep that covers New England only, there are many others that cover territories across the whole US. But now we have just heard from the Milbank headquarters directly. I really doubt he had anything in the first place, he was just bluffing.


Rick Holbrook with Milbank should be ashamed of himself. Just like chicken steve, he gave bad information.


----------



## PokeySmokey

telsa said:


> Per the NEC, the GEC has to be BONDED when it passes through a ferrous enclosure.
> 
> This was detailed - by me - in a thread less than two-weeks ago.
> 
> And, you can't bond with plastic.
> 
> Two-screw Romex// MC connectors are NOT listed for this application, BTW.
> 
> I know, I know, they are commonly thrown at the 'problem.'
> 
> &&&
> 
> But hey, as long as your AHJ is letting you get by... why obey the NEC ?
> 
> The danger created only erupts when fault conditions fire off, anyway.
> 
> Until then, everything works perfectly.
> 
> Hey, that's the same logic as every DIY// handy man out there.


Another way of stating what Hackwork wrote above:

When it passes through a ferrous enclosure NOT Where it passes through a ferrous enclosure!

As long as it is correctly bonded to the metal enclosure; ferrous or non-ferrous!

There is a difference!

I agree that if the grounding conductor is bare the Kenny Connector is the way to go.

Even stating that, you are able to use NM connectors if you use loom where the bare grounding conductor passes through the ferrous enclosure.

As far as single conductors (current carrying) entering ferrous enclosures is another discussion, entirely!!!


----------



## Wiresmith

National Electrical Code®
Committee Report
on Comments

various years


5-112 Log #924 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Peter D. Noval, Jr., Philadelphia, PA
Comment on Proposal No: 5-199
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal
enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous
from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding
electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.
Nonferrous metal enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.
Ferrous Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or
equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous
by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode
conductor. Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous
metal raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service equipment and the
grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as, or larger than, the required
enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the
requirements of the appropriate raceway article.
Substantiation: I am in agreement with the panel statement that “the
electrically continuous requirement applies to metal enclosures for grounding
electrode conductors and is the general requirement of this section. The
bonding requirements are applicable where the metal enclosure is not
electrically continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding
electrode.”
In support of this statement, the revised text makes it clear that all metal
enclosures, not just ferrous ones, are subject to the intent of the panel, with
regard to bonding requirements, where the metal enclosure is not electrically
continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
In addition, as written, 250.64(E) does not require nonferrous metal
enclosures to be “securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.” Only
ferrous metal enclosures need to “Be securely fastened to the ground clamp or
fitting.” If this intent here is bonding the enclosure, that requirement is stated in
subsequent text.
The revised text clarifies the intent of this section by deleting this potentially
unenforceable statement.
Further, if the panel insists on retaining the exemption from bonding for
nonferrous metal enclosures in 250.64(E), then Section V. Bonding should be
reviewed and revised accordingly to provide consistency throughout Article
250.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The proposal would lessen the requirements of this section
without technical substantiation. The electrically continuous requirement
applies to ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors and
is the general requirement of this section. The bonding requirements are
applicable where the ferrous metal enclosure is not electrically continuous from
the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15




5-110 Log #517 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dan Leaf, Seneca, SC
Comment on Proposal No: 5-194
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: This section only requires ferrous enclosures for grounding
electrode conductors (e.g., raceways) to be electrically continuous and exempts
nonferrous raceways. 250.92(A)(3) requires bonding of metallic (includes
ferrous and nonferrous types) raceways and enclosures which in effect makes
them electrically continuous.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The referenced 250.92(A)(3) was removed by panel action
on Proposal 5-219 and therefore no longer applies to raceways containing
grounding electrode conductors. Only 250.64(E) addresses raceways for
grounding electrode conductors and the panel intends that this apply only to
ferrous metal raceways.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 


5- 104 - (250-64(e)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Phil Simmons, Simmons Electrical Services
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 5-179
RECOMMENDATION: Make the following changes to the existing
text of the Code.
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Metal
enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically
continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment
to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the
NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA
158
ground clamp or fitting. Metal enclosures that are not physically
continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode
shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as
protection for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation
shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate raceway
article.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since changes were made to the name of the
conductor used to connect the grounding electrode(s) at
additional buildings or structures in Proposal 5-123, the above
changes need to be made to this section for correlation.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Editorially correct the second sentence to change the "of" to "to"
and read as follows:
Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinet or
equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically
continuous by bonding each end of to the grounding electrode
conductor.
PANEL STATEMENT: See panel Comment 5-100a (Log #CC503)
which incorporates the action on this comment.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 16
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16


5-126 Log #58 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 250.64(E) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Michael V. Glenn, Longview Fibre Co.
Comment on Proposal No: 5-162
Recommendation: Delete the word Ferrous.
Substantiation: Why did the panel add the word Ferrous to make the requirement
technically correct? The panel did not supply any substantiation that
Aluminum raceway is not acceptable. If an aluminum conductor is acceptable
as a grounding electrode conductor then an aluminum raceway or enclosure
should be acceptable as well. I request the panel reconsider this addition.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise Section 250.64(E) from the ROP draft to read as follows:
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal enclosures
for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the
point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and
shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Nonferrous metal
enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous. Ferrous metal
enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the
grounding
electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor.
Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes,
and enclosures between the service equipment and the
grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as or larger than the required
enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
for a grounding
electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the requirements of the
appropriate raceway article.
Panel Statement: The panel affirms its initial action on this proposal clarifying
that where aluminum or other nonferrous enclosures are used for enclosing
grounding electrode conductors, the bonding requirement at each end of the
nonferrous raceway is not required. The insertion of the word “ferrous” adds
clarification on the issue being addressed by the submitter of this comment.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: The change to this section does not address clearly the case
where a ferrous raceway or enclosure is in series with nonferrous raceways or
enclosures. If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous, then it is necessary
to bond the ferrous and nonferrous parts together and connect the ends of the
structure to the grounding electrode and the service equipment, or the ferrous
portions of the enclosures have to be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor
at their ends. The goal of this is to allow the current to flow through the
ferrous enclosure in parallel with the grounding electrode conductor. I do not
believe the revised language is sufficiently clear on this.


----------



## Wiresmith

what else you need besides an english lesson


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> what else you need besides an english lesson


A code article that requires the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel. Do you have one? No? Didn't think so...

I didn't read your previous post because it's just a lot of pasted text. You need to actually explain your assertion before just pasting text into a discussion.

Why is it that the 2 people who are against the world both don't know how to have a discussion with facts like adults?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> A code article that requires the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel. Do you have one? No? Didn't think so...
> 
> I didn't read your previous post because it's just a lot of pasted text. You need to actually explain your assertion before just pasting text into a discussion.
> 
> Why is it that the 2 people who are against the world both don't know how to have a discussion with facts like adults?


its the code making panel discussing how the gec needs bonded right where it exits any ferrous enclosure


one section that states it
" If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous, then it is necessary
to bond the ferrous and nonferrous parts together and connect the ends of the
structure to the grounding electrode and the service equipment, or the ferrous
portions of the enclosures have to be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor
at their ends."


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> what else you need besides an english lesson


Pretty ironic coming from someone who can't spell or use proper grammar.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> its the code making panel discussing how the gec needs bonded right where it exits any ferrous enclosure


 No, that is not true.

I have explained this nearly 20 times now.

The article you are talking about is ONLY talking about what it clearly says it is talking about: Raceways and enclosures *for* GECs.

I have even posted an image showing exactly what both a raceway and an enclosure for a GEC is:










There is no question at all as to what an enclosure *for* a GEC is after seeing that picture. It is NOT a panel as we are discussing here.

When it comes to code, words have meanings.


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Pretty ironic coming from someone who can't spell or use proper grammar.


lesson one

i·ron·ic
īˈränik/
adjective
happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.
"it was ironic that now that everybody had plenty of money for food, they couldn't obtain it because everything was rationed"
synonyms:	paradoxical, incongruous
"it's ironic that a former illiterate is now a successful writer"


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> No, that is not true.
> 
> I have explained this nearly 20 times now.
> 
> The article you are talking about is ONLY talking about what it clearly says it is talking about: Raceways and enclosures *for* GECs.
> 
> I have even posted an image showing exactly what both a raceway and an enclosure for a GEC is:
> 
> 
> There is no question at all as to what an enclosure *for* a GEC is after seeing that picture. It is NOT a panel as we are discussing here.
> 
> When it comes to code, words have meanings.




just read it and weep


"any enclosing ferrous material"


these are the discussions where they are making the code, its to be read as it was intended not with a prejudice FOR the word FOR


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> just read it and weep
> 
> 
> "any enclosing ferrous material"


Yes, while talking about *250.64(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors*. What they are saying only applies to that section that they are talking about, which is only enclosures *FOR* GECs.

Think about that for a second, if they said the same thing while talking about a section titled "Enclosures for 600V and greater" would that mean it applies to all enclosures, or only those housing 600V or greater conductors?

I am very surprised that you got this far with such a remedial understanding of how the code works.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> these are the discussions where they are making the code, its to be read as it was intended not with a prejudice FOR the word FOR


There is no prejudice, the word has meaning and that meaning has to be applied. Coupled with the image that I posted that directly shows that the meaning is a pipe or trough for a GEC. 

That is why it is you and Steve against everyone else. Just think about that. Do you really think that you and Steve are the smart ones and everyone else just doesn't understand?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Yes, while talking about *250.64(E) Raceways and Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors*. What they are saying only applies to that section that they are talking about, which is only enclosures *FOR* GECs.
> 
> Think about that for a second, if they said the same thing while talking about a section titled "Enclosures for 600V and greater" would that mean it applies to all enclosures, or only those housing 600V or greater conductors?
> 
> I am very surprised that you got this far with such a remedial understanding of how the code works.


5-112 Log #924 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
__________
5-110 Log #517 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
____________
5- 104 - (250-64(e))

5-126 Log #58 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 250.64(E) )



everything i posted was for 250.64(E)


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> There is no prejudice, the word has meaning and that meaning has to be applied. Coupled with the image that I posted that directly shows that the meaning is a pipe or trough for a GEC.
> 
> That is why it is you and Steve against everyone else. Just think about that. Do you really think that you and Steve are the smart ones and everyone else just doesn't understand?




all you have is one picture and the word FOR


the previous code panel's agree with me


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> 5-112 Log #924 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
> (250.64(E))
> __________
> 5-110 Log #517 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
> (250.64(E))
> ____________
> 5- 104 - (250-64(e))
> 
> 5-126 Log #58 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
> ( 250.64(E) )
> 
> 
> 
> everything i posted was for 250.64(E)


EXACTLY. That is exactly what I said. Everything that the CMP was talking about was directly for *Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors.*

They were NOT talking about loadcenters like we are in this thread. A loadcenter is NOT an enclosure FOR a GEC.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> That is why it is you and Steve against everyone else. Just think about that. Do you really think that you and Steve are the smart ones and everyone else just doesn't understand?



no, i think because it has been done that way for so long by so many people, that it is easy to believe it is not required. if i thought everyone else on here were idiots, i wouldn't post.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> all you have is one picture and the word FOR
> 
> 
> the previous code panel's agree with me


No, they don't agree with you. 

The only person who agrees with you is a known lunatic who tries to be a rebel all the time. 

If I interpreted the code in a certain way that NO ONE agreed with other than one internet troll, I would realize that I was wrong and figure out what I was mistaken about. But you are unwilling to learn.


----------



## Wiresmith

so whats your address ill send you a late christmas gift, a box of kenny clamps, let me guess you use #6 wire


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> no, i think because it has been done that way for so long by so many people, that it is easy to believe it is not required. if i thought everyone else on here were idiots, i wouldn't post.


This is silly. We all know that we do things against code because it is accepted, but we don't lie about it being against code. 

For example, we know that installing a PVC male adapter or SE connector into a meter hub is against code. We admit it, even though it passes inspection.

So there is no reason why we wouldn't admit that bringing a GEC in thru the small hole was against code- if it actually were. The only reason why no one is admitting that is because it's clearly code complaint. There is no code prohibiting it.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> so whats your address ill send you a late christmas gift, a box of kenny clamps, let me guess you use #6 wire


If you gave me a free box of Kenny clamps I would sell them. I wouldn't use them. If I did use them, the inspectors would ask me why I wasted $10 and say that they aren't required by code and they don't serve any purpose.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> EXACTLY. That is exactly what I said. Everything that the CMP was talking about was directly for *Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors.*
> 
> They were NOT talking about loadcenters like we are in this thread. A loadcenter is NOT an enclosure FOR a GEC.


"If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous"

this is an exact excerpt, they dont care what its for, they only care if its ferrous and enclosing the conductor


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> "If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous"
> 
> this is an exact excerpt, they dont care what its for, they only care if its ferrous and enclosing the conductor


As you stated in your post above, they were talking specifically about 250.64(E) and the enclosures cited in that article, which are only enclosures FOR a GEC.

They are NOT talking about all enclosures, they are only talking about the enclosures affected by 250.64(E). 

How many more times do I have to explain that same exact thing to you?


----------



## Wiresmith

well.

im not asking you to admit your wrong, but i will ask you to give this a little more research if you don't really believe me.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> As you stated in your post above, they were talking specifically about 250.64(E) and the enclosures cited in that article, which are only enclosures FOR a GEC.
> 
> They are NOT talking about all enclosures, they are only talking about the enclosures affected by 250.64(E).
> 
> How many more times do I have to explain that same exact thing to you?


until it makes sense

ferrous enlosure


it doesnt matter what its for, it will choke the GEC when hit with a high current


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> well.
> 
> im not asking you to admit your wrong, but i will ask you to give this a little more research if you don't really believe me.


I have researched it far more than you have. 

Again, how could you possibly think that you are right when it's you and Steve against everyone else? That alone doesn't make any sense. If what you said had any merit, at least half of the people would see it.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> I have researched it far more than you have.
> 
> Again, how could you possibly think that you are right when it's you and Steve against everyone else? That alone doesn't make any sense. If what you said had any merit, at least half of the people would see it.


poll time


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> until it makes sense
> 
> ferrous enlosure


What I said makes perfect sense.

What if the article was talking about fire alarm, and when talking about the article that cited enclosures for fire alarm cable the CMP said "If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous...". 

Would that mean every ferrous enclosure as you are asserting here, or only those enclosing fire alarm cables? This is 1st year apprentice stuff.

I keep giving you reasonable analogies, but you are unwilling to learn.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> What I said makes perfect sense.
> 
> What if the article was talking about fire alarm, and when talking about the article that cited enclosures for fire alarm cable the CMP said "If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous...".
> 
> Would that mean every ferrous enclosure as you are asserting here, or only those enclosing fire alarm cables? This is 1st year apprentice stuff.
> 
> I keep giving you reasonable analogies, but you are unwilling to learn.


the meter base, or panel in your case is enclosing the gec


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> the meter base, or panel in your case is enclosing the gec


So is the room that it is in.

Neither the room nor the panel are an "Enclosure for the GEC".

No matter how hard you try, you will always fail. The intent of the code is clear, a raceway or enclosure for the GEC, as pictured in the image I have posted many times.


----------



## Wiresmith

so, address?


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> so, address?


This is a typical chicken steve response. One he would use in the same situation as you, when you have nothing else to substantiate your assertions.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> So is the room that it is in.
> 
> Neither the room nor the panel are an "Enclosure for the GEC".
> 
> No matter how hard you try, you will always fail. The intent of the code is clear, a raceway or enclosure for the GEC, as pictured in the image I have posted many times.


is the room completely ferrous with no breaks?

you can get away with cutting slots the entire length of the enclosure, that will eliminate the concern


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> is the room completely ferrous with no breaks?


Yes, and that proves beyond any reasonable doubt how asinine your assertion is.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> This is a typical chicken steve response. One he would use in the same situation as you, when you have nothing else to substantiate your assertions.


i have a picture and a bold word somewhere, just give me a d*** minute


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> you can get away with cutting slots the entire length of the enclosure, that will eliminate the concern


I would ask you to provide a code article for that where it _applies to the GEC_, but we know that you are just making this up as you go.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Yes, and that proves beyond any reasonable doubt how asinine your assertion is.


you should bond it where the gec exits, or run its own gec to the grounding electrode and bond your electrical system to it somewhere inside


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> you should bond it where the EGC exits, or run its own egc to the grounding electrode


Chicken steve.

That's what we are going to call stupid posts that are only made to distract from the fact that you can't post the code article that supports your claim.


----------



## Roger

hd13 said:


> you should bond it where the EGC exits, or run its own egc to the grounding electrode


Huh?

Roger


----------



## HackWork

Roger said:


> Huh?
> 
> Roger


He chicken steved.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Again, how could you possibly think that you are right when it's you and Steve against everyone else? That alone doesn't make any sense. If what you said had any merit, at least half of the people would see it.



that logic is like.

St. Peter asked"why did you jump off the bridge", HackWork responded "everyone else was doing it".


i don't care if there is no-one else agreeing with me, the only rebuttle that has been given to my arguement is

-one picture
-*FOR*
-an inspector let me do it
-and probably some other creative ones


i am going to research this issue more for the reason you are stating (so many people arguing against it (although with no substantial evidence))

and i would love to learn something here if someone would post a substantial argument against mine


----------



## Wiresmith

oops, did i chicken steve again?


----------



## MTW

Bad troll is bad.


----------



## trentonmakes

I think Hax exsplained it pretty clearly and simply.
The fact you are not grasping it is pause for concern.


Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

trentonmakes said:


> I think Hax exsplained it pretty clearly and simply.
> The fact you are not grasping it is pause for concern.
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


i think, you dont grasp basic ac theory and should be confined to posting in the diy forum


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> that logic is like.
> 
> St. Peter asked"why did you jump off the bridge", HackWork responded "everyone else was doing it".
> 
> 
> i don't care if there is no-one else agreeing with me, the only rebuttle that has been given to my arguement is
> 
> -one picture
> -*FOR*
> -an inspector let me do it
> -and probably some other creative ones
> 
> 
> i am going to research this issue more for the reason you are stating (so many people arguing against it (although with no substantial evidence))
> 
> and i would love to learn something here if someone would post a substantial argument against mine


 You clearly don't understand the way code works. You are making the assertion, it is on you to prove that the code requires it. If not, then it's not required.

We have gone above and beyond to explain to you where your errors are. You were just unwilling to listen.

As far as this being like one person following everyone else jumping off of a bridge, that is a very childish remark. My point was very clear in that everyone else who understands code agrees except for two people. That is not some anomaly, it is simply two people who need to be educated.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i think, you dont grasp basic ac theory and should be confined to posting in the diy forum


You are making my point for me. It is not him that you are speaking to, it is everyone except for you and Steve. You are saying that everyone is wrong and only you and Steve are aware of the truth as if this was a new topic and no one ever discussed before.


----------



## Wiresmith

your the forum vet, im the newb, get a poll going


from everyone that has fully read all the arguments in this thread

-bond
-not required
-not sure


----------



## trentonmakes

hd13 said:


> i think, you dont grasp basic ac theory and should be confined to posting in the diy forum


The difference is I am willing to learn, and admit when I am wrong. 
Im not out to prove anything, but rather shoot the chit and expand on my knowledge.


Texting and Driving


----------



## trentonmakes

You really want a poll asking if 250.64[E], is talking about enclosures for the GEC?
[POPCORN]

Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> I have researched it far more than you have.
> .



*you didnt even know what it meant by choke*




HackWork said:


> Even when using the Kenny Clamp, you would still connect the GEC to the neutral bar. The Kenny Clamp is just a way to choke the GEC as it enters.





HackWork said:


> We are abiding by the NEC, which does not require the GEC to be bonded as it enters an enclosure. The only thing even remotely close to what you are saying is that the GEC needs to be "choked" as it enters and exits a metal raceway.




did you chicken steve?


----------



## Wiresmith

trentonmakes said:


> The difference is I am willing to learn, and admit when I am wrong.
> Im not out to prove anything, but rather shoot the chit and expand on my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving



my only intent with an account on this forum is to learn, look up any of my other posts on here its usually a question. the only reason i posted an argument for this is because of the egregious ignorance that was being posted and spread.


----------



## lighterup

trentonmakes said:


> The difference is I am willing to learn, and admit when I am wrong.
> Im not out to prove anything, but rather shoot the chit and expand on my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


well said...me too.:thumbsup:


----------



## MTW

hd13 said:


> your the forum vet, im the newb, get a poll going
> 
> 
> from everyone that has fully read all the arguments in this thread
> 
> -bond
> -not required
> -not sure


This topic is not subject to a poll or opinion. The code is crystal clear on it already. If it were really that confusing, a poll might be in order. But the vast majority understand the issue.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> *you didnt even know what it meant by choke
> *


*

First, your english is horrible. It's hard to understand. Can you please speak like a normal person?

Second, you are correct, I know very little about the choke effect and will happily admit it. I don't know far more than I do know, but I learn every single day.

Third, my contention has clearly been about code. Now we all know that you can't cite real world problems with the GEC going thru the panel without being bonded. But even if you could, that doesn't change the fact that code does not require you to bond that GEC as it enters a panel. That is what I have been maintaining this entire thread.

So please, feel free to make fun of me about what I don't know, I will laugh with you and hopefully learn something. But it will all just be your distraction away from the fact that you can't prove your assertion that code requires the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel.*


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> *you didnt even know what it meant by choke*
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you chicken steve?


That was me.. IU had never heard the term "choking" as it
relates to GEC's...I admit it...I'm not an EE and also BTW ,
even though I have State EC license ( and no it was not
grandfathered to me-I tested & passed) I do not consider 
myself to be a "Master Electrician"...but I am very good at what
I do.

Like Trenton , I'm here to soak up any knowledge I don't yet 
possess and shoot the chit.:thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> the only reason i posted an argument for this is because of the egregious ignorance that was being posted and spread.


So again, everyone except for you and steve is ignorant. I see.

You know what they say about people like you who think everyone _else_ in the world is wrong?


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> First, your english is horrible. It's hard to understand. Can you please speak like a normal person?


No, no. He will school you. Remember this?



hd13 said:


> what else you need besides an english lesson


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> That was me.. IU had never heard the term "choking" as it
> relates to GEC's...I admit it...I'm not an EE and also BTW ,
> even though I have State EC license ( and no it was not
> grandfathered to me-I tested & passed) I do not consider
> myself to be a "Master Electrician"...but I am very good at what
> I do.
> 
> Like Trenton , I'm here to soak up any knowledge I don't yet
> possess and shoot the chit.:thumbsup:


hacks explanation to you was wrong



HackWork said:


> "Originally Posted by lighterup View Post
> What does it mean to "choke" the GEC...stabalize?
> this is a new term for me"
> 
> "If you run a GEC thru a metal raceway, you need to "choke" it on each end, which is essentially bonding it to the raceway on each end."


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> No, no. He will school you. Remember this?


the best i could maybe do is start a go-fund me, im not an english major


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> hacks explanation to you was wrong


Yes, my terminology was wrong and I admitted it.

I wish you would spend this much time talking about my analogies, such as the one about "Enclosures FOR fire alarm" or "Enclosures FOR 600V", etc. 

But it's funny, you conveniently ignored those. You think you got away with it, but you didn't. Everyone knows you didn't speak to those because it blows up your entire argument. The FOR makes a difference, what the CMP wrote was only about Enclosures FOR GECs.


----------



## lighterup

In this trade , one can hop from company to company
and find varying techniques that are worded as "code".

One company claims the other companies are hacks , 
don't know what they're doing , you were trained by 
morons...it goes on & on.

I say listen and consider to what's being said , but 
if the one calling everyone else "hackers" or what 
ever other term he/she comes up with cannot teach 
their "company ways" with the NEC , they should
probably just say .."_this is how we do it here_" 
_at ACME electric Company _it's our companies 
SOP.

I do not miss working for other people man...not 
one little bit.


----------



## trentonmakes

lighterup said:


> In this trade , one can hop from company to company
> and find varying techniques that are worded as "code".
> 
> One company claims the other companies are hacks ,
> don't know what they're doing , you were trained by
> morons...it goes on & on.
> 
> I say listen and consider to what's being said , but
> if the one calling everyone else "hackers" or what
> ever other term he/she comes up with cannot teach
> their "company ways" with the NEC , they should
> probably just say .."_this is how we do it here_"
> _at ACME electric Company _it's our companies
> SOP.
> 
> I do not miss working for other people man...not
> one little bit.


That pisses me off with the company Im with now. Everything is code until I research it, then it becomes, well thats how WE do it. 
That is fine, but I hate being told its code just to find out later its the way the company does things.
The guys do quality work, but the only one who is really knowledgable about code is the boss and he is rately on jobsites.


Texting and Driving


----------



## macmikeman

Here is what I was taught in apprenticeship school some 43 years ago now about choke. If you run regular emt or GRC conduit over a gec wire and do not bond it at both ends, then during a fault current will be "choked" meaning restricted along the path of the gec and render it less useful in delivering enough current back to the source as to trip an overcorrect device set up to interrupt the fault. This would be due to the electromagnetic fields created along the gec enclosed in the conduit creating back emf opposed to the flow of current thru the gec within the unbounded at both ends conduit. So consequently we were told that it is code and required to bond the gec to both ends of the ferrous metal conduit housing the gec for protection from physical damage . At no point ever ever did the subject of bonding the panels ever enter into the discussions other than the point where the gec connects to the neutral busbar. And further, millions of millions of times now, the fact that it is not required to bond at the exit point of the service panel has proven itself via many millions of short circuit events where the circuit breakers in fact did shut off due to current traveling down the gec and also back along the neutral wire were sufficient to make the tripping device work. As a matter of fact the gec is just a back up safety in case the neutral wire is damaged or corroded away. And that ends this story for any and all so called experts in choking and who have a shiny badge purchased from a club formed to give electrical inspectors a chance to get away from the old lady for an hour or two and get sloshed. The End......


----------



## lighterup

If this thread doesn't stop , I personally guarantee
I will bombard it with much much more Slim Whitman 
music


----------



## macmikeman

lighterup said:


> If this thread doesn't stop , I personally guarantee
> I will bombard it with much much more Slim Whitman
> music


Is Slim that guy who got extremely extremely rich selling country music and ended up getting a 60 minutes interview?


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> Is Slim that guy who got extremely extremely rich selling country music and ended up getting a 60 minutes interview?


...annnnd sold more records than Elvis and the Beatles


----------



## macmikeman

lighterup said:


> ...annnnd sold more records than Elvis and the Beatles


Yeah, when I saw that 60 minutes I immediately was reminded of Flyboy, even though I never heard of him yet.


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> And further, millions of millions of times now, the fact that it is not required to bond at the exit point of the service panel has proven itself via many millions of short circuit events where the circuit breakers in fact did shut off due to current traveling down the gec and also back along the neutral wire were sufficient to make the tripping device work. As a matter of fact the gec is just a back up safety in case the neutral wire is damaged or corroded away..



neither the GEC or grounding electrode are for tripping a breaker, please quit spreading this ignorance

250.4(A)(1)electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> the GEC or grounding electrode are not for tripping a breaker, please quit spreading this ignorance
> 
> 250.4(A)(1)electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation


That did it! You asked for it....


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> That did it! You asked for it....
> https://youtu.be/Gd4Zy77fDpo


LOL


love it


----------



## Wiresmith

561 replies
9,246 views
11 days

poll please


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup

are you 

-additional bonding required
-not required
-don't know for sure


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> lighterup
> 
> are you
> 
> -additional bonding required
> -not required
> -don't know for sure


I am truly sorry , but I don't have a single independent
thought on this anymore and I'm ..._thiisss close_ to
being accepted into the MTW / Hackworks Hall of Favorites
so I cannot make a move yet.


----------



## eddy current

HackWork said:


> Yes, my terminology was wrong and I admitted it.
> 
> I wish you would spend this much time talking about my analogies, such as the one about "Enclosures FOR fire alarm" or "Enclosures FOR 600V", etc.
> 
> But it's funny, you conveniently ignored those. You think you got away with it, but you didn't. Everyone knows you didn't speak to those because it blows up your entire argument. The FOR makes a difference, what the CMP wrote was only about Enclosures FOR GECs.


Our code ( the CEC) is written much the same. We also have codes for this issue with choking. Many guys also have the same problem understanding our codes for the same “wording style” used.

The GEC starts inside the main panel, it does not travel through it. Choking is if the GEC, along its run to the electrode, goes *through* a metal enclosure, again it does not go through the main panel.


As for bonding as it exits the panel, that may be required, but the code 250.64(E) does not apply to that.


I can’t believe this is still being argued.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Our code ( the CEC) is written much the same. We also have codes for this issue with choking. Many guys also have the same problem understanding our codes for the same “wording style” used.
> 
> The GEC starts inside the main panel, it does not travel through it. Choking is if the GEC, along its run to the electrode, goes *through* a metal enclosure, again it does not go through the main panel.
> 
> 
> As for bonding as it exits the panel, that may be required, but the code 250.64(E) does not apply to that.
> 
> 
> I can’t believe this is still being argued.




then why cant you just bond it inside an enlcosure it goes through, you have to bond it at both ends?


----------



## lighterup

and lets not forget...





Lets keep it goin fellas:thumbsup::whistling2:


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> neither the GEC or grounding electrode are for tripping a breaker, please quit spreading this ignorance
> 
> 250.4(A)(1)electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation



Hey mister code expert- what the hell do you think the words limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines means? It means flip the breaker off. I am not talking about ground rods here, I mentioned gec. Mine is connected solidly to my copper water lines which are solidly connected to ten other houses and their neutral bonds which deliver my fault current back to the source in case my neutral is compromised. You must have imagined I was speaking about depending on earth for interruption of fault current, but I never even mentioned it.


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> then why cant you just bond it inside an enlcosure it goes through, you have to bond it at both ends?


Bonding at both ends, as it enters and as it leaves, ensures it will be at the same potential throughout it’s length stopping any “choke”from happening.


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Hey mister code expert- what the hell do you think the words limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines means? It means flip the breaker off. I am not talking about ground rods here, I mentioned gec. Mine is connected solidly to my copper water lines which are solidly connected to ten other houses and their neutral bonds which deliver my fault current back to the source in case my neutral is compromised. You must have imagined I was speaking about depending on earth for interruption of fault current, but I never even mentioned it.



it means try to keep earth at the same potential as the rest of the bonded equipment.

what breaker are you referring to?


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Bonding at both ends, as it enters and as it leaves, ensures it will be at the same potential throughout it’s length stopping any “choke”from happening.


okay, it appears all you are arguing with me about is the wording of the code, not the physics. sorry, i see it in your earlier post now


----------



## ElectricalArtist

macmikeman said:


> hd13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither the GEC or grounding electrode are for tripping a breaker, please quit spreading this ignorance
> 
> 250.4(A)(1)electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey mister code expert- what the hell do you think the words limit the voltage imposed by lightning, line surges or unintentional contact with higher voltage lines means? It means flip the breaker off. I am not talking about ground rods here, I mentioned gec. Mine is connected solidly to my copper water lines which are solidly connected to ten other houses and their neutral bonds which deliver my fault current back to the source in case my neutral is compromised. You must have imagined I was speaking about depending on earth for interruption of fault current, but I never even mentioned it.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a response on the other thread, ur saying 725.141 i has nothing to do with the topic? Very curious of why not


----------



## Wiresmith

ElectricalArtist said:


> Still waiting for a response on the other thread, ur saying 725.141 i has nothing to do with the topic? Very curious of why not


what other thread


----------



## sbrn33

This thread needs a code expert. Are there any "certified" code experts/inspectors on here?


----------



## macmikeman

sbrn33 said:


> This thread needs a code expert. Are there any "certified" code experts/inspectors on here?


Steve is.........


----------



## MTW

macmikeman said:


> Clown Shoes is.........


Fify


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> okay, it appears all you are arguing with me about is the wording of the code, not the physics. sorry, i see it in your earlier post now


Everyone is talking about the code.

The physics don't matter since we have so many millions of real world examples of GEC's going into a panel/meter without being bonded as it enters and you can't cite a single instance of that causing any issue.


----------



## Wiresmith

sbrn33 said:


> This thread needs a code expert. Are there any "certified" code experts/inspectors on here?


i think it needs a poll:vs_peek:


----------



## sbrn33

I can't remember running a gec through an enclosure with out bonding it. So in other words terminating it.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Everyone is talking about the code.
> 
> The physics don't matter since we have so many millions of real world examples of GEC's going into a panel/meter without being bonded as it enters and you can't cite a single instance of that causing any issue.


Clearly it's an issue because someone with the initials C.S. made up a little court case for those who recklessly ignore the NEC. 



> "Mr Jockey, did you or did you not install a new electrical service for Joe Bag 'O Donuts."?
> 
> 
> " Yes sir I did"
> 
> " Did you or did you not install a GEC for said install?"
> 
> 
> " Yes sir I did"
> 
> 
> " Did you or did you not install said GEC in accordance with 250.8, 250.64 E,
> 312.5A, and 300.15 ?"
> 
> 
> "Uhmm, I thought i did....."
> 
> " Your honor, may i present exhibit A before the court"
> {pix of GEC entering 1/4" hole}
> 
> {prosecutor faces jury}
> 
> "For want of a $3 part Mr Jockey's install _clearly failed_ to mitigate the lightning strike Mr Donut incurred. Acme Insurance _does not_ cover that which is obviously malfeasance our investigators have _proven_ from their site visit.
> 
> Our stance is Mr Donuts claim with us is invalidated , and he will need to _pursue restitution_ from Mr Jockey and or Mr Jockey's business
> 
> I rest my case your honor"


----------



## sbrn33

HackWork said:


> Everyone is talking about the code.
> 
> The physics don't matter since we have so many millions of real world examples of GEC's going into a panel/meter without being bonded as it enters and you can't cite a single instance of that causing any issue.


You so smart


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Everyone is talking about the code.
> 
> we have so many millions of real world examples of GEC's going into a panel/meter without being bonded as it enters and you can't cite a single instance of that causing any issue.


it wouldnt be an instance like a meter base exploding


it is about lowering the impedance of the system to earth, under high currents


this lowers the difference of potential between intentionally grounded equipment and actual earth quicker (almost immeasurably quicker), the sooner the better in terms of damage and the higher the voltage and current the more important time is.

this lowers the damage to everything in and attached to the structure.


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> it means try to keep earth at the same potential as the rest of the bonded equipment.
> 
> what breaker are you referring to?


I find nothing wrong in your first statement. But I would say as well.


----------



## sbrn33

Hello stevie, hello. we need you.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> it wouldnt be an instance like a meter base exploding
> 
> 
> it is about lowering the impedance of the system to earth, under high currents
> 
> 
> this lowers the difference of potential between intentionally grounded equipment and actual earth quicker (almost immeasurably quicker), the sooner the better in terms of damage and the higher the voltage and current the more important time is.
> 
> this lowers the damage to everything in and attached to the structure.


Like I said, you can't cite a single instance of this being an issue. Not one.

I explained to you earlier in the thread how thousands of kids got hurt by sticking things into outlets, which was the substantiation for the requirement of tamper resistant outlets.

You and Steve keep saying how dangerous it could be running a GEC thru the hole, but you are talking out your ass since you have absolutely zero substantiation.


----------



## macmikeman

sbrn33 said:


> Hello stevie, hello. we need you.


He ditched at Marissa.


----------



## Wiresmith

MTW said:


> Clearly it's an issue because someone with the initials C.S. made up a little court case for those who recklessly ignore the NEC.


funny you should bring that up
i think its Helling v. Carey

it doesnt matter whether its code or not, being the proposed bonding is so cheap, if damage is contributed to the lack of it, the EC can be held liable.

Helling v. Carey

this is why when anyone goes to the eye doctor you get a glaucoma test, even if your chances to have glaucoma is 1 in a million (age/family history)

its because its a cheap test

before the court case it was common practice to only give the test to at risk patients
the doctor lost in court, his patient wound up having glaucoma even though they were not high risk and it was the industry standard not to test a patient with there characteristics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088386/




cost/benefit


----------



## macmikeman

ElectricalArtist said:


> Still waiting for a response on the other thread, ur saying 725.141 i has nothing to do with the topic? Very curious of why not


I don't remember what we were talking about. Give me a link please and I will go there and answer.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> funy you should bring that up
> 
> u.s. supreme court case Helling v. Carey
> 
> it doesnt matter whether its code or not, being the proposed bonding is so cheap, if damage is contributed to the lack of it, the EC can be held liable.
> 
> u.s. supreme court case Helling v. Carey
> 
> this is why when anyone goes to the eye doctor you get a glaucoma test, even if your chances to have glaucoma is 1 in a million (age/family history)
> 
> its because its a cheap test


Then we should all close our doors right now because that can be said for anything. Do you oversize your wires? Only use rigid? Use silver conductors? Use super duper space shuttle breakers? 

How many thousands of instances can someone say that you could have made an installation better?

You are just as bad as chicken Steve, you should be ashamed.

You no longer have the privilege of my attention.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

hd13 said:


> ElectricalArtist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a response on the other thread, ur saying 725.141 i has nothing to do with the topic? Very curious of why not
> 
> 
> 
> what other thread
Click to expand...

 that was for macmikeman. He told me in another thread that a code reference that I got directly from Mike Holt has nothing to do with a subject that I also got directly from Mike Holt so I don't know if I just wasted over $1,000 on Mike Holt DVDs because if Mike holt is giving me wrong information I'm going to have to get a refund.


----------



## macmikeman

ElectricalArtist said:


> that was for macmikeman. He told me in another thread that a code reference that I got directly from Mike Holt has nothing to do with a subject that I also got directly from Mike Holt so I don't know if I just wasted over $1,000 on Mike Holt DVDs because if Mike holt is giving me wrong information I'm going to have to get a refund.


What was the other thread confound it! Was it the telephone wire in the same hole?


By the way, we haven't established that that picture is actually a phone cable even though it looks like a phone cable. It might be a pull string for a secret door opener or something leading to a pizza restaurant via secret underground tunnel.


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> okay, it appears all you are arguing with me about is the wording of the code, not the physics. sorry, i see it in your earlier post now


Well ya. Is this thread not about if it is CODE to use a connector on a GEC as it leaves it’s source?

And are you saying you agree that it is not required by code so this stupid thread will finally end?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Then we should all close our doors right now because that can be said for anything. Do you oversize your wires? Only use rigid? Use silver conductors? Use super duper space shuttle breakers?
> 
> How many thousands of instances can someone say that you could have made an installation better?
> 
> You are just as bad as chicken Steve, you should be ashamed.
> 
> You no longer have the privilege of my attention.



its about installing to or above the standard a reasonable person with requisite knowledge would.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> And are you saying you agree that it is not required by code so this stupid thread will finally end?



sadly no


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> okay, it appears all you are arguing with me about is the wording of the code, not the physics. sorry, i see it in your earlier post now


Ok then explain what you mean by this?

The wording of the code does not apply to bonding the GEC as it leaves it’s source.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Ok then explain what you mean by this?
> 
> The wording of the code does not apply to bonding the GEC as it leaves it’s source.



earlier you said


eddy current said:


> As for bonding as it exits the panel, that may be required, but the code 250.64(E) does not apply to that.




you said it may be required


that's good enough for me, i don't care where you think its required, just that you think it might be required is a lot better than what these other guys are saying


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> earlier you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said it may be required
> 
> 
> that's good enough for me, i don't care where you think its required, just that you think it might be required is a lot better than what these other guys are saying


Manufacturer instructions supersede the NEC according to 110.3 (B). Sadly I cannot drive over to Home Depot and purchase a Milbank enclosure so I cannot check the instructions included in the listing and labeling..........
But so far we have a company source for two sockets that say the hole in the bottom is for installing a gec thru.


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> earlier you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said it may be required
> 
> 
> that's good enough for me, i don't care where you think its required, just that you think it might be required is a lot better than what these other guys are saying


I have never ran a GEC without a L-16 connector bonding it as it exits, that is what I was taught. Many times I used a plastic connector but I always used something. This thread is the first I have ever heard of it not being bonded with some type of connector actually.(keep in mind I’m in Canada)

My point is the code that is being used as the code that specified this is wrong. And yes, there may be a code somewhere in the NEC that specifies it, but 250.64(E) is not it.

ETA. I also can not find a specific code in the CEC that specifies it either


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> Manufacturer instructions supersede the NEC according to 110.3 (B). Sadly I cannot drive over to Home Depot and purchase a Milbank enclosure so I cannot check the instructions included in the listing and labeling..........
> But so far we have a company source for two sockets that say the hole in the bottom is for installing a gec thru.


none of the manufacturers said you must run the GEC through the hole, they alluded that you could.they did not require it.

by that logic, is Hackwork wrong not to take his to the meter-base? they have a hole for a GEC, does that mean you have to use it?


i agree that hole is there for the GEC


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> none of the manufacturers said you must run the GEC through the hole, they alluded that you could.they did not require it




Good enough for me right there.


----------



## lighterup

Oh my Gaaaawddd...I think you all missed your true
calling as Lawyers....here's anutha one...


----------



## macmikeman

Some things I am going to say right now. None of this is going to mesh with the code book however, so take it for what it is worth.

First, during a surge, a crossover of high tension wiring , and a lightning strike, it remains extremely highly doubtful that any small conductor connected to a ground rod(s) or even a good metal water pipe with 10 ft of soil contact, nor a piece of rebar in a concrete footing is going to turn the earth of the surrounding area to rise to the same potential. (perhaps down in Punta Gorda however , where Flyboy is moving to, especially if he gets fur enough out there past Highway 75 in the boonies where you dig two shovels of dirt and you hit groundwater...) 

But..... as has been demonstrated time after time, once the grounded conductor leading to the service transformer has become deteriorated due to weather and corrosion, the gec has become the new grounded conductor as it were, due to the neutral to case bond at the service and the connection to the metal water pipe. This has become a sort of new return path and is often undiscovered for a considerable time frame until a plumber discovers that a jumper around his cut on the main water line might a been a better way to chart his day. This is due to his water pipe being in connection to the house nearby via their water line, and their neutral to case bonding. And in fact it might have saved the house from burning down so long as it was effective a path given the abundance of electronics inside the house that is not surge protected always. So the use of the gec for a backup return path is actually a dam fine thing to concern ourselves with , even may I say it when wiring a ten or twenty story building, it may not ever be a lost neutral situation happen but if it did, well.......

Next thing. During a high tension cross over- with a high enough voltage potential, most ground will in fact become a good enough conductor to reach to all the driven rods, connected water pipes, slabs and other various rings etc to assist the flow of enough current back to the source when taken as a whole system and will get the utility overcorrect devices to open. I know this for a fact cause I saw the aftermath of such an event before when secondaries got mixed up with primaries and energized. It took about 2-5 seconds for it to end, the poco fuses blew, and some houses in the area got fridges and tv's smoked, but nobody had a fire. The poco engineer's told me no way the secondary neutrals would have been able to take that full load back and the ground connections were probably the key element in this not becoming a full blown fire storm in the area of Kailua called Coconut Grove. Hey, maybe Kenny clamps would have made things go more smooth......


----------



## sbrn33

As I read this it eis like 6,000 against 2. Are the 2 right? Stevie are you still around?


----------



## Arrow3030

Here's how I see it.

If the GEC terminates in the same enclosure as the service grounded conductor, don't worry about choke.

Otherwise, if the GEC enters/exits a ferrous race way, always bond it as it enters/exits.

This makes me wonder if someone is going to suggest bonding the service grounded conductor as it enters the enclosure with the MBJ.


----------



## macmikeman

Arrow3030 said:


> Here's how I see it.
> 
> If the GEC terminates in the same enclosure as the service grounded conductor, don't worry about choke.
> 
> Otherwise, if the GEC enters/exits a ferrous race way, always bond it as it enters/exits.
> 
> This makes me wonder if someone is going to suggest bonding the service grounded conductor as it enters the enclosure with the MBJ.


That's exactly what Kenny is hoping for.....


----------



## MTW

OK Mike, you are always right. Happy now?


----------



## macmikeman

MTW said:


> OK Mike, you are always right. Happy now?


No because the very next hidden secret thing I reveal to you , you are gonna say fake new source and mock me once again.................:laughing:


Psst........ Tony Podesta is in oh, wait, this is the general electrical section, too bad, you loose.........:laughing:


----------



## Wiresmith

Arrow3030 said:


> Here's how I see it.
> 
> If the GEC terminates in the same enclosure as the service grounded conductor, don't worry about choke.
> 
> Otherwise, if the GEC enters/exits a ferrous race way, always bond it as it enters/exits.
> .




then why do you have to bond to both ends of an enclosure for the GEC, not just bond it, but at both ends



Arrow3030 said:


> This makes me wonder if someone is going to suggest bonding the service grounded conductor as it enters the enclosure with the MBJ.


im not,

the GEC should be bonded as it leaves it's last ferrous enclosure(only ferrous(if you use aluminum then its not required)) 

we want the surge current, like lightning to be connected to earth as easily and quickly as we practically can

the majority of the current in the part of the system we are talking about is going to be on the enclosure, not the wire in the enclosure, so the wire needs to be connected when it is leaving surrounding ferrous material to connect the enclosure with the least impedance practical to the grounding electrode


----------



## MTW

macmikeman said:


> No because the very next hidden secret thing I reveal to you , you are gonna say fake new source and mock me once again.................:laughing:







> Psst........ Tony Podesta is in oh, wait, this is the general electrical section, too bad, you loose.........:laughing:


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> Some things I am going to say right now. None of this is going to mesh with the code book however, so take it for what it is worth.
> 
> First, during a surge, a crossover of high tension wiring , and a lightning strike, it remains extremely highly doubtful that any small conductor connected to a ground rod(s) or even a good metal water pipe with 10 ft of soil contact, nor a piece of rebar in a concrete footing is going to turn the earth of the surrounding area to rise to the same potential.


are you saying earth is not a good conductor. if so i agree


macmikeman said:


> (perhaps down in Punta Gorda however , where Flyboy is moving to, especially if he gets fur enough out there past Highway 75 in the boonies where you dig two shovels of dirt and you hit groundwater...)
> 
> But..... as has been demonstrated time after time, once the grounded conductor leading to the service transformer has become deteriorated due to weather and corrosion, the gec has become the new grounded conductor as it were, due to the neutral to case bond at the service and the connection to the metal water pipe. This has become a sort of new return path and is often undiscovered for a considerable time frame until a plumber discovers that a jumper around his cut on the main water line might a been a better way to chart his day. This is due to his water pipe being in connection to the house nearby via their water line, and their neutral to case bonding. And in fact it might have saved the house from burning down so long as it was effective a path given the abundance of electronics inside the house that is not surge protected always. So the use of the gec for a backup return path is actually a dam fine thing to concern ourselves with , even may I say it when wiring a ten or twenty story building, it may not ever be a lost neutral situation happen but if it did, well.......


so do you think theres any point to grounding if theres only plastic piping in the area?



macmikeman said:


> Next thing. During a high tension cross over- with a high enough voltage potential, most ground will in fact become a good enough conductor to reach to all the driven rods, connected water pipes, slabs and other various rings etc to assist the flow of enough current back to the source when taken as a whole system and will get the utility overcorrect devices to open. I know this for a fact cause I saw the aftermath of such an event before when secondaries got mixed up with primaries and energized. It took about 2-5 seconds for it to end, the poco fuses blew, and some houses in the area got fridges and tv's smoked, but nobody had a fire. The poco engineer's told me no way the secondary neutrals would have been able to take that full load back


 i thought you said earlier in this post ground is a poor conductor and i agreed


macmikeman said:


> and the ground connections were probably the key element in this not becoming a full blown fire storm in the area of Kailua called Coconut Grove. Hey, maybe Kenny clamps would have made things go more smooth......


----------



## Arrow3030

So a lightning strike won't travel on the grounded conductor?

The difference between an enclosure with the MBJ and an enclosure without the MBJ is one has an MBJ and the other doesn't.


----------



## Wiresmith

Arrow3030 said:


> So a lightning strike won't travel on the grounded conductor?
> 
> The difference between an enclosure with the MBJ and an enclosure without the MBJ is one has an MBJ and the other doesn't.


lightning will travel on everything


the point is to connect the sources of the different potentials (the sky to the ground) (the difference of electrons is trying to equalize) with as low of impedance as practical


the lower the impedance our structure/system has to ground during an instant like that, the lower the voltage gradients exist within the structure and system during the episode


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> are you saying earth is not a good conductor. if so i agree
> 
> so do you think theres any point to grounding if theres only plastic piping in the area?
> 
> i thought you said earlier in this post ground is a poor conductor and i agreed


At secondary voltage levels the ground is a lousy conductor. At primary voltage levels another story altogether. Do some math on it. I believe we were in the area of 17kv primary if I am not mistaken and I often am, regardless of what Mr MTW always says about me being right all the time. The impedance of the soil is not near the barrier to current at that voltage as it is at 120/240 volts. And multiply that into a multitude of grounding points along a series of residential streets with power poles , with a static line connected to a ground rod all the way at about every third pole. Add in the grounding at each dwelling along that path, sort of a ghetto area as far as crowding the houses together. And we are almost exclusively copper for the water lines here, not like some other places. That is how to get things to go where they are supposed to go. So now what we had was a primary got hooked up to a secondary side connection by accident . That surged a ten block area. Nobody got injured, but I bet somebody got fired. Maybe not, they got a good union here. Ok, yelled at.....


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> lightning will travel on everything
> 
> 
> the point is to connect the sources of the different potentials (the sky to the ground) (the difference of electrons is trying to equalize) with as low of impedance as practical
> 
> 
> the lower the impedance our structure/system has to ground during an instant like that, the lower the voltage gradients exist within the structure and system during the episode



I'm in agreement here too. It is not a real lightning protection system, but on the other hand , it ain't altogether a bad idea at all..............

Still, a Kenny clamp is not a code requirement, due to the fact that the service panel is not a gec raceway or enclosure. (I bet they have the neutral bus going pretty close down to the bottom of the can nowadays for a reason, and yep, this might be the reason.


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> At secondary voltage levels the ground is a lousy conductor. At primary voltage levels another story altogether. Do some math on it. I believe we were in the area of 17kv primary if I am not mistaken and I often am, regardless of what Mr MTW always says about me being right all the time. The impedance of the soil is not near the barrier to current at that voltage as it is at 120/240 volts. And multiply that into a multitude of grounding points along a series of residential streets with power poles , with a static line connected to a ground rod all the way at about every third pole. Add in the grounding at each dwelling along that path, sort of a ghetto area as far as crowding the houses together. And we are almost exclusively copper for the water lines here, not like some other places. That is how to get things to go where they are supposed to go. So now what we had was a primary got hooked up to a secondary side connection by accident . That surged a ten block area. Nobody got injured, but I bet somebody got fired. Maybe not, they got a good union here. Ok, yelled at.....


i agree an impromptu equipotential ground grid like you describe would carry a lot of current at that voltage. though that scenario is not in most places


----------



## Wiresmith

macmikeman said:


> I'm in agreement here too. It is not a real lightning protection system, but on the other hand , it ain't altogether a bad idea at all..............
> 
> Still, a Kenny clamp is not a code requirement, due to the fact that the service panel is not a gec raceway or enclosure. (I bet they have the neutral bus going pretty close down to the bottom of the can nowadays for a reason, and yep, this might be the reason.



i agree, a kenny clamp is not specifically required and if i were an inspector and the GEC were bonded close to where it leaves(1/2" away). i might pass it and try to explain to the guy the reasoning it would be better another way


----------



## macmikeman

hd13 said:


> i agree an impromptu equipotential ground grid like you describe would carry a lot of current at that voltage. though that scenario is not in most places



Nothing impromptu about it, its exactly why the poco always see's to it we keep pounding rods, bonding slabs, water lines, etc etc. All that could be solved with wire #4 on the service drop, (#5 for commercial 3 phase areas....) But that would cost more money wouldn't it.....


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> the GEC should be bonded as it leaves it's last ferrous enclosure(only ferrous(if you use aluminum then its not required))


According to what code?


----------



## macmikeman

eddy current said:


> According to what code?


Look up two or three posts above your inquiry. He agrees there is no specific requirement .


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> Look up two or three posts above your inquiry. He agrees there is no specific requirement .


I can't find that. Just some crap about how he might pass it if it's bonded within 1/2" of entering. 

Continually pulling crap out of his ass.

Speaking of that, where's steve?? :jester:


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> I can't find that. Just some crap about how he might pass it if it's bonded within 1/2" of entering.
> 
> Continually pulling crap out of his ass.
> 
> Speaking of that, where's steve?? :jester:


He bailed out as soon as Marissa gave us the news about the hole. Hey, that sounds funny.....:laughing:


----------



## catsparky1

To bad we can't get pipe runner in on this .


----------



## macmikeman

I miss him. He was a hoot.


----------



## Navyguy

So clearly from a CEC perspective, we have no horse in this race. My original response to this thread was that we (the royal we in Canada) generally use a non-compliant connector to secure the GEC at the point of entry (panel or meter socket) as a form of “strain relief” and not for bonding. This is also supported by the use of PVC as “they” (the omniscient writers of the Canadian code) say that is a good means of strain relief; impossible to support the bonding of the enclosure upon entrance / exit.

After reading some 600+ posts in this discussion (more like TV drama); to me there are clearly two different camps. One is arguing that the bonding of the “metal enclosure” is required for physics and the others say it is not required because it is not a “code requirement”.

Even in our code, there is no requirement (that has been pointed out by Eddy I think) to bond the metal enclosure if it does not exit, but we have a requirement for the “strain relief” aspect that perhaps is not present in the NEC.

To nudge this along, if we could agree that there is not a “code requirement” to install a bonding connector if a GEC enters a panel or meter socket (I think we all got the pipe, trough, etc, pass through application); could I ask does anyone think that there should be a requirement to address the physics argument by not bonding the panel or meter socket when it only terminates in said enclosure?

I believe I have a firm grasp of the “choke effect” and “eddy currents”, etc; but admittedly I am not up on a high voltage or high amperage pressure on a GEC and the effects that would have upon entering a metal enclosure regardless of it’s use.

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork

> One is arguing that the bonding of the “metal enclosure” is required for physics and the others say it is not required because it is not a “code requirement”.


 I think this is slightly off.

One side, which consists of just about everyone, is explaining the fact that there is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel and there is also no scientific reason to do it.

The other side, which consists of two or three people, say that it is required by code and there is a scientific reason to do it. Yet they cannot provide the code or any actual real world instance of an issue occuring.


----------



## Navyguy

So to clarify, you are saying that there is no code requirement “because” there is no physics requirement? While the others are saying that that despite there not being a code requirement there is a physics requirement and it should be done?

I can’t argue the code one way or the other as I am not familiar with the NEC; but as posted earlier there is no requirement in the CEC (except for strain relief) and our wording is similar; my question is do the “not required by code” camp feel there might / is a requirement based on the physics argument?

Edit: - if there is a physics argument, then I would suspect that there would be support for a code amendment?

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> So to clarify, you are saying that there is no code requirement “because” there is no physics requirement?




Nope, I don't know why there is no code requirement, I just know that there isn't.

I also haven't seen any substantiation for why it should be a code requirement. I have seen a little bit of conjecture on how dangerous it is, but the fact that it is done so often and no one can provide an instance of it being dangerous proves that there isn't an issue.



> While the others are saying that that despite there not being a code requirement there is a physics requirement and it should be done?


 The others are saying both that it is a code requirement and they are also saying that it is an issue of danger. Neither of which they can substantiate. 

I literally just explained that in my last post.



> my question is do the “not required by code” camp feel there might / is a requirement based on the physics argument?[/SIZE][/FONT]


Any code change would require substantiation. I explained in two earlier posts how tamper-resistant receptacles became a code requirement after thousands of children required hospital visits for their injuries from sticking something into outlets. 

How many panels have blown up due to the GEC not being bonded to the panel upon entry? Other than Telsa saying how catastrophic it could be, I haven't seen a single bit of evidence proving it could happen, nor any real world events. 

It seems like a couple of people are just pulling things out of thin air.


----------



## Navyguy

So I have never seen a catastrophic event either (in 30+ years), so based on that I would tend to agree; but to be fair about it, I have never been to any job that has had a lightening strike or any high voltage / current pressure on the GEC... so either they don't exist or I have just never seen one.

If they don't exist, then I would agree that there would not be a code requirement. If they do exist, then to use the TR analogy, what is the risk / reward ratio that should make it a requirement? If we did everything using a "what if", we all would stay at home wrapped in bubble wrap...

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> So I have never seen a catastrophic event either (in 30+ years), so based on that I would tend to agree; but to be fair about it, I have never been to any job that has had a lightening strike or any high voltage / current pressure on the GEC... so either they don't exist or I have just never seen one.
> 
> If they don't exist, then I would agree that there wold not be a code requirement. If they do exist, then to use the TR analogy, what is the risk / reward ration that should make it a requirement? If we did everything using a "what if", we all would stay at home wrapped in bubble wrap...
> 
> Cheers
> John


When this thread first started I did a little digging. I found an electrical contractor forum in which people were talking about this in 2000 or 2002. This is not a new discussion, it's been going on for a long time. 

In all that time a few things happened:

A) The CMP never felt the need to clarify the code, because everyone (save 3 idiots) clearly understands it. 
B) Not a single catastrophic event happened caused by the GEC not being bonded as it entered the panel.

The "Physics" behind the catastrophic events that could occur are simply made up in people's heads. I could use that same line of thinking to say that a direct lightning strike to a house can cause a fire and damage and a true lightning protection system should be installed.


----------



## HackWork

@chicken steve where are you???


----------



## brian john

Navyguy said:


> So I have never seen a catastrophic event either (in 30+ years), so based on that I would tend to agree; but to be fair about it, I have never been to any job that has had a lightening strike or any high voltage / current pressure on the GEC... so either they don't exist or I have just never seen one.
> 
> If they don't exist, then I would agree that there would not be a code requirement. If they do exist, then to use the TR analogy, what is the risk / reward ratio that should make it a requirement? If we did everything using a "what if", we all would stay at home wrapped in bubble wrap...
> 
> Cheers
> John


I have completed quite a few lightning investigations from catastrophic failures where I have seen some messed up crap, from house fires to all electronics blown apart, one issue we concentrate on is the main service, never noticed any issues surrounding the GEC entering the panel be it in a Romex connector or bare through the enclosure.


----------



## Switched

In another 5-10 years... This thread may still be going....

I have decided that until this is settled, I will just drive the ground rods (I will assume I need one every 6' around the home) but not run a GEC.....


----------



## brian john

HackWork said:


> . I could use that same line of thinking to say that a direct lightning strike to a house can cause a fire and damage and a true lightning protection system should be installed.



I would bet a lack of maintenance of the GEC (old bad connections, corroded electrode) and tight bends in the GEC are more of a threat than the lack of a kenny clamp.

I am going to invent a GEC tight bend bypass


----------



## catsparky1

So what one now the GREEN or the BARE one so confused HELP ME ?


----------



## HackWork

catsparky1 said:


> So what one now the GREEN or the BARE one so confused HELP ME ?


I use black insulated. 

Green is for the EGC, not the GEC.


----------



## eddy current

Side note, I’ve noticed many pics from the US show a solid GEC, is that a requirement?


----------



## lighterup

eddy current said:


> Side note, I’ve noticed many pics from the US show a solid GEC, is that a requirement?


not here. it just costs less than the stranded


----------



## HackWork

eddy current said:


> Side note, I’ve noticed many pics from the US show a solid GEC, is that a requirement?


No. I don't know why people use that since it's so thick and hard to deal with.

I use #2 aluminum XHHW for the water pipe GEC, #4 copper THHN for the UFER, and #6 copper THHN for the ground rods. All black insulation.


----------



## macmikeman

We used to have one inspector who wouldn't accept stranded gec wire if it went into the ground or some concrete. So you always had to run solid for him. Guys like him piss me off. chicken steve disease. He probably was a member of IAEI and got a shiny badge after he paid them money for it.


Edit: I'm talking about copper wire here......


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> We used to have one inspector who wouldn't accept stranded gec wire if it went into the ground or some concrete. So you always had to run solid for him. Guys like him piss me off. chicken steve disease. He probably was a member of IAEI and got a shiny badge after he paid them money for it.


It's your fault for allowing it to happen.

There was an inspector in one town here that required Kenny Clamps for the GEC going into a panel among other stupid requirements that he made up himself. He no longer has a job.


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> It's your fault for allowing it to happen.
> 
> There was an inspector in one town here that required Kenny Clamps for the GEC going into a panel among other stupid requirements that he made up himself. He no longer has a job.


Well,,,,,,,,,,, I like the way you think. But,,,,,,, I did a four story building , designed to be a medical lab, with boatloads of outlets, lights, fire alarm, distribution, panels, elevator, chiller plant and air handlers galore, extra's , eatra's , extra's , and more extra's and big money. The $200 I spent re-doing some 3/0 stranded gec wiring to make it go above ground in some pvc conduit to keep him happy and finish the job so I could get myself another draw was simply a no brainer, since it was all he wanted to focus on for the whole project. I'm still pissed at him though. He retired by the way, so we are down to just one dinosaur in the whole pile of around 30 Elec inspectors now and those guys are all great.


----------



## HackWork

There's always an excuse why we let the government walk all over us.


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> There's always an excuse why we let the government walk all over us.


If it makes you happier, I very often make illegal left turns at intersections with the red arrow when no cars are coming the other direction. Screw waiting for that stupid light to change to green.


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> If it makes you happier, I very often make illegal left turns at intersections with the red arrow when no cars are coming the other direction. Screw waiting for that stupid light to change to green.


I'm sure when the FEMA trains arrive you will find a reason to help load people on.


----------



## sbrn33

eddy current said:


> Side note, I’ve noticed many pics from the US show a solid GEC, is that a requirement?


I think that is because 6 and larger solid on not need any physical protection. Same reason I use 6 solid when I could use 8.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> I think that is because 6 and larger solid on not need any physical protection. Same reason I use 6 solid when I could use 8.


Are you sure of that?


----------



## sbrn33

Pretty sure.
When I go into work I may even look it up.


----------



## HackWork

Yeah, and then post the code article, Steve.


----------



## sbrn33

Ok maybe "physical damage" was the wrong term. I should have said it doesn't have to be protected as much as a smaller conductor. 

Section 250.64 of the 2014 NEC covers the installation requirements of grounding electrode conducts. Securing and protection rules are outlined in 250.64(B). As noted in a portion of this Section, "A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or cable armor."

So I am Man enough to admit a "may" have been a little wrong.


----------



## macmikeman

sbrn33 said:


> Pretty sure.
> When I go into work I may even look it up.


The wording is something like firmly or securely attached to the surface of the structure for the #6 as I recall and then you don't need to worry about physical damage. #8 is ok for the same amperage service as #6 covers if it is run inside a conduit all the way to the electrode. I rarely ever install 100 amp services any longer, unless its a temp pole. I keep a roll of bare #4 in the shop and almost every service I install is a 200 nowadays. Haven't had to do any big buildings since most of you were born.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> Ok maybe "physical damage" was the wrong term. I should have said it doesn't have to be protected as much as a smaller conductor.
> 
> Section 250.64 of the 2014 NEC covers the installation requirements of grounding electrode conducts. Securing and protection rules are outlined in 250.64(B). As noted in a portion of this Section, "A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or cable armor."
> 
> So I am Man enough to admit a "may" have been a little wrong.


This discussion was about solid or stranded. You replied talking about solid wire needing less physical protection. I never saw a difference in protection or anything else of a GEC based on whether it was solid or stranded.


----------



## MTW

sbrn33 said:


> Ok maybe "physical damage" was the wrong term. I should have said it doesn't have to be protected as much as a smaller conductor.
> 
> Section 250.64 of the 2014 NEC covers the installation requirements of grounding electrode conducts. Securing and protection rules are outlined in 250.64(B). As noted in a portion of this Section, "A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or cable armor."
> 
> So I am Man enough to admit a "may" have been a little wrong.


You Chicken Steved.


----------



## sbrn33

eddy current said:


> Side note, I’ve noticed many pics from the US show a solid GEC, is that a requirement?


I see nothing in here about stranded wire, you are the one that brought that in. 
I just told him why you see so many US jobs using #6 solid. It is because you can run it to the ground rod with no protection in most instances.


----------



## trentonmakes

sbrn33 said:


> I think that is because 6 and larger solid on not need any physical protection. Same reason I use 6 solid when I could use 8.



250.64[3]
Smaller than 6AWG
GEC must be protected in RMC IMC PVC RTRC-XE. EMT oe Cable Armor

So, yeah i guess you could use 8 but why?

ETA quote

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> I see nothing in here about stranded wire, you are the one that brought that in.


 When Eddy asked about how he only sees a solid GEC used here, you don't think he was speaking in comparison to stranded? 

What else would he have been expecting to see in contrast to solid?
@eddy current you were talking about solid vs. stranded, right?



> I just told him why you see so many US jobs using #6 solid. It is because you can run it to the ground rod with no protection in most instances.


 He wasn't asking about size. I could do the same thing that you just did, only it would have more merit: "_I see nothing in here about wire size, you are the one that brought that in._"

I guess chicken steve is rubbing off on people...


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> 250.64[3]
> Smaller than 6AWG
> GEC must be protected in RMC IMC PVC RTRC-XE. EMT oe Cable Armor
> 
> So, yeah i guess you could use 8 but why?
> 
> ETA quote
> 
> Texting and Driving


No one ever suggested to use #8. Sabrina is having a conversation about GEC size with himself.


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> No one ever suggested to use #8. Sabrina is having a conversation about GEC size with himself.


Im sticking tabs on sections so you look proffessional when you borrow my book for your classes.
So I looked it up. Lol
Apparently 8awg is only good for 100amp service as well

Texting and Driving


----------



## sbrn33

HackWork said:


> No one ever suggested to use #8. Sabrina is having a conversation about GEC size with himself.


Did you even read any of this?


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> Im sticking tabs on sections so you look proffessional when you borrow my book for your classes.
> So I looked it up. Lol
> Apparently 8awg is only good for 100amp service as well
> 
> Texting and Driving


I hate tabs. 

At the contractor exam you have to use their codebook and I got one with tabs. I asked for a new one halfway thru.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> Did you even read any of this?


I am not happy with your posting this morning. Keep it up and you can expect a very sternly written text message.


----------



## eddy current

HackWork said:


> @eddy current you were talking about solid vs. stranded, right?
> 
> ...


Yep ....


----------



## MTW

Where's @chicken steve right now?


----------



## brian john

MTW said:


> Where's @chicken steve right now?


Being wrong, lying and just downright ignorant has never stopped the chicken from posting his crap.


----------



## HackWork

This is amazing... @chicken steve

All of a sudden, the second we get verification from the manufacturers, which was Steve's idea to get in the first place, he now just stops posting. After 70+ posts in this thread, he is now silent. 

How small and petty do you have to be to do that? 

He constantly brags about being a member of the IAEI. Is that how they teach their membership to be? To just hide under a rock if you make a bad code determination? To not just be man enough to admit a simple mistake?

Steve, do you really think that you are saving face here?


----------



## trentonmakes

All he has to say is....
It appears I was wrong but still maintain it is good practice to bond the GEC upon entry/exit of the panel.

[emoji14]

Texting and Driving


----------



## eddy current

I had an instructor in college who was very knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent but would argue with any student that he was always right. Even if the student could prove it, this guy would stand his ground.

Had another instructor who was not as knowledgeable and experienced but would admit when he was wrong and or that he did not know the answer. Anytime he had conflicting answers in class, he would research them and get back to the class the next week with the correct answers.

Guess which instructor got more respect from me and from the rest of the students in the class? Just sayin


----------



## sbrn33

IMO if the GEC is terminated in the enclosure there is no reason to use a kenny clamp. If it is run through it without termination then it probably needs it but I can't think of one instance when that would happen.


----------



## brian john

eddy current said:


> I had an instructor in college who was very knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent but would argue with any student that he was always right. Even if the student could prove it, this guy would stand his ground.
> 
> Had another instructor who was not as knowledgeable and experienced but would admit when he was wrong and or that he did not know the answer. Anytime he had conflicting answers in class, he would research them and get back to the class the next week with the correct answers.
> 
> Guess which instructor got more respect from me and from the rest of the students in the class? Just sayin


I use to teach electrical to building engineers when confronted with a question I could not answer my stock response was.*"*

*"*You know I am really not sure but give me until the next class and I will have an answer for you.*"*

I have worked with a few guys if they did not know the answer I swear they would make one up.


----------



## Wiresmith

did you guys catch the code making committee comments on 250.64(E) that i posted earlier, they clearly explain it must be bonded right where it leaves.

these are the guys that wrote the code, in the discussion making the code


5-112 Log #924 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
__________________________________________________ __________
Submitter: Peter D. Noval, Jr., Philadelphia, PA
Comment on Proposal No: 5-199
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal
enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous
from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding
electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.
Nonferrous metal enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.
Ferrous Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or
equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous
by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode
conductor. Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous
metal raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service equipment and the
grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as, or larger than, the required
enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the
requirements of the appropriate raceway article.
Substantiation: I am in agreement with the panel statement that “the
electrically continuous requirement applies to metal enclosures for grounding
electrode conductors and is the general requirement of this section. The
bonding requirements are applicable where the metal enclosure is not
electrically continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding
electrode.”
In support of this statement, the revised text makes it clear that all metal
enclosures, not just ferrous ones, are subject to the intent of the panel, with
regard to bonding requirements, where the metal enclosure is not electrically
continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
In addition, as written, 250.64(E) does not require nonferrous metal
enclosures to be “securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.” Only
ferrous metal enclosures need to “Be securely fastened to the ground clamp or
fitting.” If this intent here is bonding the enclosure, that requirement is stated in
subsequent text.
The revised text clarifies the intent of this section by deleting this potentially
unenforceable statement.
Further, if the panel insists on retaining the exemption from bonding for
nonferrous metal enclosures in 250.64(E), then Section V. Bonding should be
reviewed and revised accordingly to provide consistency throughout Article
250.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The proposal would lessen the requirements of this section
without technical substantiation. The electrically continuous requirement
applies to ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors and
is the general requirement of this section. The bonding requirements are
applicable where the ferrous metal enclosure is not electrically continuous from
the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15




5-110 Log #517 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.64(E))
__________________________________________________ __________
Submitter: Dan Leaf, Seneca, SC
Comment on Proposal No: 5-194
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: This section only requires ferrous enclosures for grounding
electrode conductors (e.g., raceways) to be electrically continuous and exempts
nonferrous raceways. 250.92(A)(3) requires bonding of metallic (includes
ferrous and nonferrous types) raceways and enclosures which in effect makes
them electrically continuous.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The referenced 250.92(A)(3) was removed by panel action
on Proposal 5-219 and therefore no longer applies to raceways containing
grounding electrode conductors. Only 250.64(E) addresses raceways for
grounding electrode conductors and the panel intends that this apply only to
ferrous metal raceways.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 


5- 104 - (250-64(e)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Phil Simmons, Simmons Electrical Services
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 5-179
RECOMMENDATION: Make the following changes to the existing
text of the Code.
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Metal
enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically
continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment
to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the
NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA
158
ground clamp or fitting. Metal enclosures that are not physically
continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode
shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as
protection for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation
shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate raceway
article.
SUBSTANTIATION: Since changes were made to the name of the
conductor used to connect the grounding electrode(s) at
additional buildings or structures in Proposal 5-123, the above
changes need to be made to this section for correlation.
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Editorially correct the second sentence to change the "of" to "to"
and read as follows:
Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinet or
equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically
continuous by bonding each end of to the grounding electrode
conductor.
PANEL STATEMENT: See panel Comment 5-100a (Log #CC503)
which incorporates the action on this comment.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 16
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16


5-126 Log #58 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 250.64(E) )
__________________________________________________ ______________
Submitter: Michael V. Glenn, Longview Fibre Co.
Comment on Proposal No: 5-162
Recommendation: Delete the word Ferrous.
Substantiation: Why did the panel add the word Ferrous to make the requirement
technically correct? The panel did not supply any substantiation that
Aluminum raceway is not acceptable. If an aluminum conductor is acceptable
as a grounding electrode conductor then an aluminum raceway or enclosure
should be acceptable as well. I request the panel reconsider this addition.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise Section 250.64(E) from the ROP draft to read as follows:
(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal enclosures
for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the
point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and
shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Nonferrous metal
enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous. Ferrous metal
enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the
grounding
electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor.
Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes,
and enclosures between the service equipment and the
grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as or larger than the required
enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
for a grounding
electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the requirements of the
appropriate raceway article.
Panel Statement: The panel affirms its initial action on this proposal clarifying
that where aluminum or other nonferrous enclosures are used for enclosing
grounding electrode conductors, the bonding requirement at each end of the
nonferrous raceway is not required. The insertion of the word “ferrous” adds
clarification on the issue being addressed by the submitter of this comment.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: The change to this section does not address clearly the case
where a ferrous raceway or enclosure is in series with nonferrous raceways or
enclosures. If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous, then it is necessary
to bond the ferrous and nonferrous parts together and connect the ends of the
structure to the grounding electrode and the service equipment, or the ferrous
portions of the enclosures have to be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor
at their ends. The goal of this is to allow the current to flow through the
ferrous enclosure in parallel with the grounding electrode conductor. I do not
believe the revised language is sufficiently clear on this.


----------



## Wiresmith

heres an excerpt and they dont say FOR


"If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous, then it is necessary
to bond the ferrous and nonferrous parts together and connect the ends of the
structure to the grounding electrode and the service equipment, or the ferrous
portions of the enclosures have to be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor
at their ends."



heres another

"PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
Editorially correct the second sentence to change the "of" to "to"
and read as follows:
Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinet or
equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically
continuous by bonding each end of to the grounding electrode
conductor."


----------



## 99cents

I haven't been following this. Is the hole for your screwdriver so you can pry out the knockout? What a great idea! Love it. No wonder you guys are talking so much about it.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> did you guys catch the code making committee comments on 250.64(E) that i posted earlier, they clearly explain it must be bonded right where it leaves.


We saw it, and we also saw the 15 times that I explained to you how that is only talking about an enclosure *for* a GEC, and even posted a picture to show you what that is.

Ignoring the truth won't get you anywhere.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> heres an excerpt and they dont say FOR


 Again, as I already explained to you 15 times, they say that when talking directly about 250.64(E), which DOES say "_for_".

They words they use ONLY apply to 250.64(E), and that article only applies to Enclosures FOR a GEC.

They are *not* speaking about loadcenters or meter pans in which the GEC terminates.

I am curious why you think posting the same exact thing that you post earlier, and we refuted, is going to get you anywhere? I would suggest you stop, as it is just making you look ignorant.


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> did you guys catch the code making committee comments on 250.64(E) that i posted earlier, they clearly explain it must be bonded right where it leaves.
> 
> these are the guys that wrote the code, in the discussion making the code
> 
> 
> 5-112 Log #924 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
> (250.64(E))
> __________________________________________________ __________
> Submitter: Peter D. Noval, Jr., Philadelphia, PA
> Comment on Proposal No: 5-199
> Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
> (E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal
> enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous
> from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding
> electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.
> Nonferrous metal enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous.
> Ferrous Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or
> equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous
> by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode
> conductor. Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous
> metal raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service equipment and the
> grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
> raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as, or larger than, the required
> enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
> for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the
> requirements of the appropriate raceway article.
> Substantiation: I am in agreement with the panel statement that “the
> electrically continuous requirement applies to metal enclosures for grounding
> electrode conductors and is the general requirement of this section. The
> bonding requirements are applicable where the metal enclosure is not
> electrically continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding
> electrode.”
> In support of this statement, the revised text makes it clear that all metal
> enclosures, not just ferrous ones, are subject to the intent of the panel, with
> regard to bonding requirements, where the metal enclosure is not electrically
> continuous from the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
> In addition, as written, 250.64(E) does not require nonferrous metal
> enclosures to be “securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting.” Only
> ferrous metal enclosures need to “Be securely fastened to the ground clamp or
> fitting.” If this intent here is bonding the enclosure, that requirement is stated in
> subsequent text.
> The revised text clarifies the intent of this section by deleting this potentially
> unenforceable statement.
> Further, if the panel insists on retaining the exemption from bonding for
> nonferrous metal enclosures in 250.64(E), then Section V. Bonding should be
> reviewed and revised accordingly to provide consistency throughout Article
> 250.
> Panel Meeting Action: Reject
> Panel Statement: The proposal would lessen the requirements of this section
> without technical substantiation. The electrically continuous requirement
> applies to ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors and
> is the general requirement of this section. The bonding requirements are
> applicable where the ferrous metal enclosure is not electrically continuous from
> the cabinet or enclosure to the grounding electrode.
> Number Eligible to Vote: 15
> Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5-110 Log #517 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
> (250.64(E))
> __________________________________________________ __________
> Submitter: Dan Leaf, Seneca, SC
> Comment on Proposal No: 5-194
> Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
> Substantiation: This section only requires ferrous enclosures for grounding
> electrode conductors (e.g., raceways) to be electrically continuous and exempts
> nonferrous raceways. 250.92(A)(3) requires bonding of metallic (includes
> ferrous and nonferrous types) raceways and enclosures which in effect makes
> them electrically continuous.
> Panel Meeting Action: Reject
> Panel Statement: The referenced 250.92(A)(3) was removed by panel action
> on Proposal 5-219 and therefore no longer applies to raceways containing
> grounding electrode conductors. Only 250.64(E) addresses raceways for
> grounding electrode conductors and the panel intends that this apply only to
> ferrous metal raceways.
> Number Eligible to Vote: 15
> Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
> 
> 
> 5- 104 - (250-64(e)): Accept in Principle
> SUBMITTER: Phil Simmons, Simmons Electrical Services
> COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 5-179
> RECOMMENDATION: Make the following changes to the existing
> text of the Code.
> (E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Metal
> enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically
> continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment
> to the grounding electrode, and shall be securely fastened to the
> NFPA 70 — May 2001 ROC — Copyright 2001, NFPA
> 158
> ground clamp or fitting. Metal enclosures that are not physically
> continuous from cabinet or equipment to the grounding electrode
> shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
> grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as
> protection for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation
> shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate raceway
> article.
> SUBSTANTIATION: Since changes were made to the name of the
> conductor used to connect the grounding electrode(s) at
> additional buildings or structures in Proposal 5-123, the above
> changes need to be made to this section for correlation.
> PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
> Editorially correct the second sentence to change the "of" to "to"
> and read as follows:
> Metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinet or
> equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically
> continuous by bonding each end of to the grounding electrode
> conductor.
> PANEL STATEMENT: See panel Comment 5-100a (Log #CC503)
> which incorporates the action on this comment.
> NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 16
> VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
> AFFIRMATIVE: 16
> 
> 
> 5-126 Log #58 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
> ( 250.64(E) )
> __________________________________________________ ______________
> Submitter: Michael V. Glenn, Longview Fibre Co.
> Comment on Proposal No: 5-162
> Recommendation: Delete the word Ferrous.
> Substantiation: Why did the panel add the word Ferrous to make the requirement
> technically correct? The panel did not supply any substantiation that
> Aluminum raceway is not acceptable. If an aluminum conductor is acceptable
> as a grounding electrode conductor then an aluminum raceway or enclosure
> should be acceptable as well. I request the panel reconsider this addition.
> Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
> Revise Section 250.64(E) from the ROP draft to read as follows:
> (E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal enclosures
> for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the
> point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and
> shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Nonferrous metal
> enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous. Ferrous metal
> enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the
> grounding
> electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the
> raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor.
> Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes,
> and enclosures between the service equipment and the
> grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor
> raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as or larger than the required
> enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection
> for a grounding
> electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the requirements of the
> appropriate raceway article.
> Panel Statement: The panel affirms its initial action on this proposal clarifying
> that where aluminum or other nonferrous enclosures are used for enclosing
> grounding electrode conductors, the bonding requirement at each end of the
> nonferrous raceway is not required. The insertion of the word “ferrous” adds
> clarification on the issue being addressed by the submitter of this comment.
> Number Eligible to Vote: 16
> Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
> Comment on Affirmative:
> BOKSINER: The change to this section does not address clearly the case
> where a ferrous raceway or enclosure is in series with nonferrous raceways or
> enclosures. If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous, then it is necessary
> to bond the ferrous and nonferrous parts together and connect the ends of the
> structure to the grounding electrode and the service equipment, or the ferrous
> portions of the enclosures have to be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor
> at their ends. The goal of this is to allow the current to flow through the
> ferrous enclosure in parallel with the grounding electrode conductor. I do not
> believe the revised language is sufficiently clear on this.


Sorry hd13, but the red quote does not say what you think it says. They are talking about enclosing a GEC with a ferrous raceway and a non ferrous raceway in series. 
Most of what you posted is about the use of aluminum now that is is used more for grounding.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Sorry hd13, but the red quote does not say what you think it says. They are talking about enclosing a GEC with a ferrous raceway and a non ferrous raceway in series.
> Most of what you posted is about the use of aluminum now that is is used more for grounding.



"If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous"


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> We saw it, and we also saw the 15 times that I explained to you how that is only talking about an enclosure *for* a GEC, and even posted a picture to show you what that is.
> 
> Ignoring the truth won't get you anywhere.




i'm only talking about enclosures the GEC are in, like what the code is talking about


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i'm only talking about enclosures the GEC are in, like what the code is talking about


That's not what the code is talking about. The code is very clear. Words have meaning, especially in law and code. The "for" is being used specifically and everyone but you agrees. 

Telsa realized he was wrong and won't show his face.
Steve realized he was wrong and won't show his face.
How long before you do the same?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> That's not what the code is talking about. The code is very clear. Words have meaning, especially in law and code. The "for" is being used specifically and everyone but you agrees.
> 
> Telsa realized he was wrong and won't show his face.
> Steve realized he was wrong and won't show his face.
> How long before you do the same?


it does not say only for the GEC

an enclosure the GEC is in is an enclosure the GEC is in

the code panel discussion goes into more explanation and they say

"If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous"


----------



## lighterup




----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> it does not say only for the GEC
> 
> an enclosure the GEC is in is an enclosure the GEC is in


 We've discussed this many times. It is clearly saying an enclosure for the GEC. And the image I posted proves that.



> the code panel discussion goes into more explanation and they say
> 
> "If a portion of the enclosing structure is ferrous"


Again, as has been explained to you many times, that quote from the code making panel was only talking about 250.64(E), which is only talking about Enclosures FOR GECs. You are being dishonest by leaving that part out every time.


----------



## lighterup

and just in case you missed that one...
https://youtu.be/684UFG52JNY?t=11





Yes that's how my head feels here on post#682. 
Thanx..Thanx alot


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> We've discussed this many times. It is clearly saying an enclosure for the GEC. And the image I posted proves that.
> 
> 
> Again, as has been explained to you many times, that quote from the code making panel was only talking about 250.64(E), which is only talking about Enclosures FOR GECs. You are being dishonest by leaving that part out every time.



its clear the code requirement is to eliminate chokes by bonding the GEC when it exits and/or enters a ferrous enclosure


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> its clear the intent is to eliminate chokes by bonding the GEC when it exits and/or enters a ferrous enclosure


...a ferrous enclosure FOR a GEC...really? Why? Why must
you torture me/us?


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> its clear the code requirement is to eliminate chokes by bonding the GEC when it exits and/or enters a ferrous enclosure


What you just said is not clear. It's your opinion that is clearly misguided. 

Right now you are the only person who feels that way. Literally.


----------



## trentonmakes

lighterup said:


> ...a ferrous enclosure FOR a GEC...really? Why? Why must
> you torture me/us?








Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> What you just said is not clear. It's your opinion that is clearly misguided.
> 
> Right now you are the only person who feels that way. Literally.



how do you think it would be worded if it was supposed to mean what i say it does?


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> how do you think it would be worded if it was supposed to mean what i say it does?


There's dozens of ways it could be worded if they meant what you think. 

I just don't get it. How can an otherwise intelligent person look at the image that I posted which shows both a raceway for a GEC and an enclosure for a GEC and not understand this? It shows the trough as an enclosure for a GEC. I have run a similar trough in a train station and we used Kenny clamps.

That does NOT translate to the panel that the GEC terminates in. 

I think you do understand it, you are either just trolling or you dug in so deep that you are not willing to reverse yourself.


----------



## emtnut

99cents said:


> I haven't been following this. Is the hole for your screwdriver so you can pry out the knockout? What a great idea! Love it. No wonder you guys are talking so much about it.


I've been following ... but just because I want to be post #1000.
It's a nice milestone, and would be my first big accomplishment for the new year 

btw... Happy New Year 99 ... all the best to you and your family :thumbsup:


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> There's dozens of ways it could be worded if they meant what you think.
> 
> I just don't get it. How can an otherwise intelligent person look at the image that I posted which shows both a raceway for a GEC and an enclosure for a GEC and not understand this? It shows the trough as an enclosure for a GEC. I have run a similar trough in a train station and we used Kenny clamps.
> 
> That does NOT translate to the panel that the GEC terminates in.
> 
> I think you do understand it, you are either just trolling or you dug in so deep that you are not willing to reverse yourself.




the picture does not say that the meter base or panel enclosure should not be included as an enclosure for the EGC, it shows the top conduit running off the page like it would be going to one of those.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> the picture does not say that the meter base or panel enclosure should not be included as an enclosure for the EGC, it shows the top conduit running off the page like it would be going to one of those.


Lol, there is something seriously wrong with you.

The picture shows an enclosure for a GEC.

The reason why you don't see a panel or meter is because they are not enclosures for GECs.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Lol, there is something seriously wrong with you.
> 
> The picture shows an enclosure for a GEC.
> 
> The reason why you don't see a panel or meter is because they are not enclosures for GECs.


where does it say they are not enclosures for the GEC


the gec does not have to go to a meter base or a panel, so they cant say meter base or panel-board enclosure in the code

they just say enclosure for the gec

which means any enclosure the gec is in


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> the picture does not say that the meter base or panel enclosure should not be included as an enclosure for the EGC, it shows the top conduit running off the page like it would be going to one of those.


Describe in your own words what an enclosure for a GEC would be. 

Here is mine.

Something you would use to protect the GEC from mechanical damage. Another example is when you install a raceway that the GEC can be pulled into for mechanical protection or just due to access issues like an inaccessible bulk head


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> where does it say they are not enclosures for the GEC


Why would the code say that something is not something else?

Where does the code say that you're not an idiot?

Since you are clearly unable to understand simple things, I am just going to let you believe that you are right and every single other person is wrong.

Have a good New Year!


----------



## Wiresmith

NEC 

90.1 ...
this code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.


they wrote this for people that have an understanding of electricity, not for people that think if the lights come on it's done right.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Why would the code say that something is not something else?
> 
> Where does the code say that you're not an idiot?
> 
> Since you are clearly unable to understand simple things, I am just going to let you believe that you are right and every single other person is wrong.
> 
> Have a good New Year!


im talking about your picture that you say shows the meter base or panel cannot possibly be an enclosure for the GEC


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Describe in your own words what an enclosure for a GEC would be.
> 
> Here is mine.
> 
> Something you would use to protect the GEC from mechanical damage. Another example is when you install a raceway that the GEC can be pulled into for mechanical protection or just due to access issues like an inaccessible bulk head


anyone with much understanding of electricity would see the intent is to eliminate a choke

why do you think you must bond at both ends of an enclosure for the gec and not just bond it, but bond it at both ends where the GEC exits and/or enters



NEC 

90.1 ...
this code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.


they wrote this for people that have an understanding of electricity, not for people that think if the lights come on it's done right.


----------



## eddy current

Where does the GEC enter AND exit the panel is starts in again?

Why is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> anyone with much understanding of electricity would see the intent is to eliminate a choke
> 
> why do you think you must bond at both ends of an enclosure for the gec and not just bond it, but bond it at both ends where the GEC exits and/or enters
> 
> 
> 
> NEC
> 
> 90.1 ...
> this code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
> 
> 
> they wrote this for people that have an understanding of electricity, not for people that think if the lights come on it's done right.


That is the worst description of a GEC that I ever heard :whistling2:


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Where does the GEC enter AND exit the panel is starts in again?
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?


it doesn't, (the neutral conductor goes out another way, electricity doesn't care what you call the wire) but that doesn't matter


(E)(1)

does not say if it enters and exits


it chokes the GEC by leaving the surrounding ferrous material(and not being bonded where it leaves), even if it is bonded to it somewhere else


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Where does the GEC enter AND exit the panel is starts in again?
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?


where it is going through the wall of the enclosure


----------



## trentonmakes

eddy current said:


> Where does the GEC enter AND exit the panel is starts in again?
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?


^^^This

Notice [AGAIN] in the pic, the sleeve entering enclosure is bonded....
The enclosure itself is bonded...
And the beginning of next sleeve is bonded...

So if it stopped in the encloser and terminates as it does in the panel, explain why you feel running the GEC through the hole and terminating is not up to code?

Would it not be exactly the same if the GEC was sleeved in pvc, which does not need to be bonded???

Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

trentonmakes said:


> ^^^This
> 
> Notice [AGAIN] in the pic, the sleeve entering enclosure is bonded....
> The enclosure itself is bonded...
> And the beginning of next sleeve is bonded...
> 
> So if it stopped in the encloser and terminates as it does in the panel, explain why you feel running the GEC through the hole and terminating is not up to code?
> 
> Would it not be exactly the same if the GEC was sleeved in pvc, which does not need to be bonded???
> 
> Texting and Driving


the actual point of the pic is where the ferrous material(all connected different kinds) ends the GEC needs to be bonded (where the ferrous surrounding material ends)


----------



## trentonmakes

hd13 said:


> the actual point of the pic is where the ferrous material(all connected different kinds) ends the GEC needs to be bonded (where the ferrous surrounding material ends)


So ran through the 1/4in hole into a panel....where does it end???

Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

when you enclose the conductor with ferrous material, you create a choke unless you bond it where the conductor leaves the surrounding ferrous material

even if it is bonded somewhere else


----------



## trentonmakes

hd13 said:


> when you enclose the conductor with ferrous material, you create a choke unless you bond it where the conductor leaves the surrounding ferrous material
> 
> even if it is bonded somewhere else


Thats not what you just said and not what the pic shows and not what the code says.

Now you may well believe this to be good practice, but it does not make it code.

Texting and Driving


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> when you enclose the conductor with ferrous material, you create a choke unless you bond it where the conductor leaves the surrounding ferrous material
> 
> even if it is bonded somewhere else


You finally got it !!! When it enters AND LEAVES.


Does this mean I don't get my #1000 post


----------



## Wiresmith

trentonmakes said:


> Thats not what you just said and not what the pic shows and not what the code says.
> 
> Now you may well believe this to be good practice, but it does not make it code.
> 
> Texting and Driving


im not trying to pull one over on you, what do i have to gain by lying to you?


----------



## Wiresmith

i don't do residential electrical work and barely even commercial, i'm not saying this because i'm afraid of losing work to people because they don't bond in one more spot.

i think it is code for good reason.

i'm not trying to put anyone down for doing it another way, the only time this would ever be necessary is if the structure or system was hit by lightning, line surge or something like that, that doesn't happen to most structures


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> wow, this is ridiculous. i am in no way saying you have to use a kenny clamp there are other code compliant ways to do it.
> 
> for the same reason you must bond at entry, you cannot run a single phase alone through a ferrous raceway either and you have to group all the circuit conductors together in a panel. this is all code requirements and because of physics not kenny.
> 
> 
> here is an article on inductance with surrounding ferrous material
> 
> http://www.esgroundingsolutions.com...mt-conduit-from-the-hot-wire-is-it-hyteresis/





hd13 said:


> im not trying to pull one over on you, what do i have to gain by lying to you?


I think you ARE trying to pull one over ... why did post a link to induction in a CONDUIT, when we are discussing a PANEL :blink:


----------



## trentonmakes

Noone thinks your lying
Ok except maybe 1

Your either confused, misinterpreting the code or refusing to acknowledge you are wrong.

You could be the first to man up and say, I realise what I have been mantaining throughout tjis thread is not required by code but i strongly believe this is good practice especially considering code is minimum requirement.

Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> I think you ARE trying to pull one over ... why did post a link to induction in a CONDUIT, when we are discussing a PANEL :blink:


to show people even a neutral (grounded and bonded conductor) running through grounded and bonded conduit will cause problems

it helps show the electrical concept that is at play


lightning current and frequency magnify the effect


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> to show people even a neutral (grounded and bonded conductor) running through grounded and bonded conduit will cause problems
> 
> it helps show the electrical concept that is at play
> 
> 
> lightning current and frequency magnify the effect


No one is disputing a grounded conductor, or a ground (gec for you guys ?)
in a ferrous CONDUIT !!!!


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> No one is disputing a grounded conductor, or a ground (gec for you guys ?)
> in a ferrous CONDUIT !!!!


electricity doesn't care as long as it is magnetic material surrounding it



another point of the neutral in the conduit is to show it does not matter if it is bonded already somewhere else


64 (e) says raceways and enclosures


----------



## B-Nabs

None of the Kenny clamp advocates (hd13 being the only one left posting on this thread) have yet addressed why a GEC entering a panel or meter pan in a PVC conduit wouldn't suffer from the same choke effect as one passing through without a conduit of any kind supposedly does. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith

B-Nabs said:


> None of the Kenny clamp advocates (hd13 being the only one left posting on this thread) have yet addressed why a GEC entering a panel or meter pan in a PVC conduit wouldn't suffer from the same choke effect as one passing through without a conduit of any kind supposedly does.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


pvc doesn't help, same thing will happen. we(some of us others) have been over this


----------



## B-Nabs

hd13 said:


> pvc doesn't help, same thing will happen. we have been over this


And yet you are specifically not required to bond the GEC as it enters in a non - ferrous raceway. Explain that.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith

B-Nabs said:


> And yet you are specifically not required to bond the GEC as it enters in a non - ferrous raceway. Explain that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


non ferrous material does not create a choke

its not magnetic.



when there is current flow in any wire anywhere, there is a magnetic field



if a wire with current on it runs through a magnetic enclosure, the magnetic field and current flow are affected


----------



## trentonmakes

hd13 said:


> non ferrous material does not create a choke
> 
> its not magnetic


Does it magicly transform the panel?

Texting and Driving


----------



## B-Nabs

hd13 said:


> non ferrous material does not create a choke
> 
> its not magnetic


But the panel is ferrous, and the non - ferrous raceway is electrically and magnetically invisible, so in your theory, the choke effect would still happen. You agree that it does not, so why would it happen without the raceway there at all? Answer: it won't. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith

B-Nabs said:


> But the panel is ferrous, and the non - ferrous raceway is electrically and magnetically invisible, so in your theory, the choke effect would still happen. You agree that it does not, so why would it happen without the raceway there at all? Answer: it won't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


i guess i was not clear enough


running the gec through pvc out of a steel enclosure does not eliminate the choke effect

it is the same as running it through an open hole


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> non ferrous material does not create a choke
> 
> its not magnetic.


You're a piece of work aren't you.

So you are saying that if you put on a section of PVC, then magically you don't think you don't have to bond on the entrance to the panel anymore, but if the wire is in free air you do ?

Now I know you're a troll ... I'm done here too !


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> You're a piece of work aren't you.
> 
> So you are saying that if you put on a section of PVC, then magically you don't think you don't have to bond on the entrance to the panel anymore, but if the wire is in free air you do ?
> 
> Now I know you're a troll ... I'm done here too !


im not saying that


----------



## Wiresmith

B-Nabs said:


> And yet you are specifically not required to bond the GEC as it enters in a non - ferrous raceway. Explain that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


he said this


you don't need to bond a non ferrous raceway on both ends


, i take it you guys are saying he meant if the non-ferrous raceway where entering the ferrous enclosure


if you run aluminum(non ferrous) conduit out of the enclosure, you can just bond it at the end of the conduit where the GEC leaves. because the current will flow along the aluminum and then connect to the GEC where it is bonded at the end


if its pvc conduit, then you need to bond where the GEC leaves the ferrous enclosure


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> he said this
> 
> 
> you don't need to bond a non ferrous raceway on both ends



So you bond your PVC at one end ???


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> he said this
> 
> 
> you don't need to bond a non ferrous raceway on both ends
> 
> 
> 
> So you bond your PVC at one end ???


non ferrous includes aluminum



i dont bond pvc anywhere, unless your talking about a glue bond


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> non ferrous includes aluminum
> 
> 
> 
> i dont bond pvc anywhere, unless your talking about a glue bond


So if you run your GEC in PVC to the panel, how do you bond it then ????


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> So if you run your GEC in PVC to the panel, how do you bond it then ????


i don't know of a way to do that

you can stop the pvc short and use a kenny clamp at the panel, or butt the pvc up to the panel over the wire or clamp


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> i don't know of a way to do that


Wow 

So we have a problem then Houston !!!

Write a code proposal ?? The panel could explode with all the inductance from not being bonded at the entrance !


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> Wow
> 
> So we have a problem then Houston !!!
> 
> Write a code proposal ?? The panel could explode with all the inductance from not being bonded at the entrance !




i never said it would explode or anything like that


it is about having a low impedance path to earth, so more lightning current (and other surges like that) will flow on that rather than other things



your just trying to get to 1,000


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> i never said it would explode or anything like that
> 
> 
> it is about having a low impedance path to earth, so lightning and other things like that don't improvise there own paths somewhere else
> 
> 
> 
> your just trying to get to 1,000


Well, I would like to be post 1000 :thumbup:

I know that you THINK the enclosure is a choke. I say it isn't. Only a physicist could really answer that question.

But if what you THINK is true, then we have a deficiency in the code. Because if I run my GEC thru PVC to the panel, how do I ground on entry?
Maybe we need a ground bushing for PVC ?


----------



## HackWork

emtnut said:


> Well, I would like to be post 1000 :thumbup:


Post #1,000 is mine, I deserve it!!!


I'll probably be banned by then :laughing::thumbup:


----------



## HackWork

Steve's last 2 posts on this subject before he went into hiding. This one which he asks for an enclosure listed for bare entry of a GEC.


chicken steve said:


> Were that true, i would have been shown an enclosure _listed_ for bare entry of a GEC via *250.8 (A) (8) * a good 20 pages ago Commando.
> 
> Still waiting......:whistling2:~CS~:thumbup:


Then this smug, arrogant post:


chicken steve said:


> :yes::yes::yes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


He was shown information from 2 manufacturers that said their panels/meter pans were listed to bring the GEC thru the hole. But he just won't recognize that, he won't respond at all. He will continue to make other unfounded posts around the forum, but he won't respond to this discussion. He was provided with the exact substantiation that he asked for. 

I just can't understand how someone can do that.


----------



## brian john

emtnut said:


> I know that you THINK the enclosure is a choke. I say it isn't. Only a physicist could really answer that question.


I said I will perform a test and ask for suggestions for a setup. 

To date no helpful responses.

I suggest

Grounded enclosure
1/4 hole, #4 AWG bare
amp clamp inside and outside the enclosure
5,000 amps then 10,000 amps
Infrared camera

same test with kenny crap.


----------



## Navyguy

Because you guys have forced me to do more research now... I just read this article which pretty much says what the majority of people are saying except for the last paragraph;

https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground



> The methods required for bonding each end of the raceway are provided in 250.92(B)(2) through (B)(4). *These methods apply to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes and enclosures containing the grounding electrode conductor*.


 Bold by me...

While I don't see it as meaning panels, meter sockets, etc; I could see where people might interrupt it as such. Again, just like us in the CEC land, you need to follow what the code states and not the wording of some article as it might have been changed with editing, etc and changed the intent of the code. But perhaps it is items like this that have led to the discussion.

Cheers

John


----------



## Navyguy

brian john said:


> I said I will perform a test and ask for suggestions for a setup.
> 
> To date no helpful responses.
> 
> I suggest
> 
> Grounded enclosure
> 1/4 hole, #4 AWG bare
> amp clamp inside and outside the enclosure
> 5,000 amps then 10,000 amps
> Infrared camera
> 
> same test with kenny crap.


Do you have something that can create a 100 million+ volts and 20 thousand+ amps?

That would be cool to see...

Cheers

John


----------



## trentonmakes

Navyguy said:


> Because you guys have forced me to do more research now... I just read this article which pretty much says what the majority of people are saying except for the last paragraph;
> 
> https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground
> 
> Bold by me...
> 
> While I don't see it as meaning panels, meter sockets, etc; I could see where people might interrupt it as such. Again, just like us in the CEC land, you need to follow what the code states and not the wording of some article as it might have been changed with editing, etc and changed the intent of the code. But perhaps it is items like this that have led to the discussion.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


I think you are correct!
But, after MANY instances of explaining clearly why that thinking is wrong and not what the code is referring too, one would come to a conclusion that they misinterpreted the code.
To keep arguing your interpretation is correct and ALL OTHERS are wrong is absurd! 
It may well be a better option, good practice and above code, but IT IS NOT what the code says!

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy, when including the second to last paragraph, it gives it better context:



> *Section 250.64(E)* requires ferrous metal _enclosures for grounding electrode conductors_ that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection, to be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway to the contained grounding electrode conductor. This action puts the contained grounding electrode conductor in parallel with the enclosing ferrous metal raceway so the two work together when the current in grounding electrode conductors rises and falls in response to various events occurring on the system. The current will actually divide over both paths, but due to the skin effect, the majority will be present in the surrounding ferrous metal raceway.
> 
> The methods required for bonding each end of the raceway are provided in 250.92(B)(2) through (B)(4). These methods apply to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes and enclosures containing the grounding electrode conductor. If a bonding jumper is used to accomplish this bonding to intervening metal raceways and enclosures, the size of the bonding jumper must not be smaller than the required contained grounding electrode conductor as provided in 250.64(E). Several manufacturers produce grounding and bonding fittings that are specifically designed and listed for this purpose.


The part that I put in red is important: "that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection".

I think this is very clear that they are talking about the types of raceways and enclosures that are in the image that I posted. It's not talking about the cabinet or equipment (ie. the panel or meter pan), it is talking about the "enclosures for grounding electrode conductors that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode, such as sleeves or short lengths of conduit used for physical protection". Going by my image, that also includes troughs, which are the enclosure for GEC's that they are talking about.

Now looking at the last paragraph, which is a continuation of the second to last paragraph in which the above was made clear, the quote about "ferrous raceways, boxes and enclosures" takes on a different meaning. I do not believe that they are trying to say ALL ferrous raceways, boxes and enclosures. I think it's clear that they are only talking about the ferrous raceways, boxes and enclosures that 250.64(E) applies to, which they defined and described in the second to last paragraph as being between the electrode and the cabinet or equipment and being for a use such as physical protection, not termination or utilization purposes.


----------



## Navyguy

trentonmakes said:


> It may well be a better option, good practice and above code, but IT IS NOT what the code says!


And that was what I was asking in an earlier post; something to the effect, it may not be code but should it?

Cheers

John


----------



## lighterup

I need a clarification on this discussion .

Meter socket enclosures have occasionally been
brought up in this topic.

It is my understanding and former training that
the meter socket enclosures are NOT considered a part
of the "Service" and are "supply side equipment".

We do not run a GEC to our meter socket enclosures 
here (though they plainly have a #2 sized lug inside 
them bonded to the neutral) . It is my understanding
that POCO would not energized if we did.

The clarification I would like input on is , "why are some
including the topic of the GEC , ferrous metal enclosures 
and preventing "choking" along with the topic of the
"meter socket enclosure"?


----------



## splatz

brian john said:


> I said I will perform a test and ask for suggestions for a setup.
> 
> To date no helpful responses.
> 
> I suggest
> 
> Grounded enclosure
> 1/4 hole, #4 AWG bare
> amp clamp inside and outside the enclosure
> 5,000 amps then 10,000 amps
> Infrared camera
> 
> same test with kenny crap.


OK if I get the idea here you'd want to apply the same voltage both ways and see if the choke effect limited current on the GEC. 

I'd say do it two ways, 

on both test setups: 
enclosure is not grounded 
conductor goes all the way through the enclosure 
conductor is bonded to a lug inside the enclosure 
conductor exits the enclosure through a plastic button at one end

then on one setup, the conductor enters through a plastic button same as it exits; 
on the other setup, the conductor enters through a Kenny clamp. 

Apply test voltage and compare the current between the two setups. 

I don't think you'd have to put the clamp inside the enclosure. I don't know if the field of the choke, if it does anything, could screw up the reading on the amp clamp. I didn't think it would matter though because wouldn't the choke effect reduce the current on the conductor before the choke, in the choke, and after the choke all the same? (Kirchoff)


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> And that was what I was asking in an earlier post; something to the effect, it may not be code but should it?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


Only if someone can substantiate a good reason.

Theory only goes so far. I think real world evidence is important. And in this instance, I think it's safe to say that there are millions of real world situations in which the GEC enters a meter or panel without a bonding device. Out of all of those, how many explosions, fires, shocks, etc. have occured? I asked that question to Telsa, Steve, and hd13. None of them responded to it, so I assume they couldn't find even one instance of an issue.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I need a clarification on this discussion .
> 
> Meter socket enclosures have occasionally been
> brought up in this topic.
> 
> It is my understanding and former training that
> the meter socket enclosures are NOT considered a part
> of the "Service" and are "supply side equipment".
> 
> We do not run a GEC to our meter socket enclosures
> here (though they plainly have a #2 sized lug inside
> them bonded to the neutral) . It is my understanding
> that POCO would not energized if we did.
> 
> The clarification I would like input on is , "why are some
> including the topic of the GEC , ferrous metal enclosures
> and preventing "choking" along with the topic of the
> "meter socket enclosure"?


Some areas are allowed to bring the GEC into the meter. In my area we are not, and the PoCo who specs and supplies the meter from Milbank gets meters without that little lug for the GEC you spoke about that comes on most meter pans.

As for why it's being included in this conversation, I guess because the NEC allows you to bring the GEC into either the service disco (main panel included) or the meter pan. Since it's code compliant and also a common thing in any areas, I think it applies to this discussion.

Either way, panel or meter pan, the bonding of the GEC is not necessary as it enters.


----------



## splatz

HackWork said:


> Only if someone can substantiate a good reason.
> 
> Theory only goes so far. I think real world evidence is important. And in this instance, I think it's safe to say that there are millions of real world situations in which the GEC enters a meter or panel without a bonding device. Out of all of those, how many explosions, fires, shocks, etc. have occured? I asked that question to Telsa, Steve, and hd13. None of them responded to it, so I assume they couldn't find even one instance of an issue.


I am going to say I am skeptical that the choke effect of an enclosure around a conductor is significant even if it passes through the enclosure without making contact. I thought chokes had to have windings like transformers do to get the multiplier effect. But I don't know. 

I'm even more skeptical that a conductor that there's ANY choke effect when the conductor is bonded to the enclosure inside, I'd think that's like having the transformer windings shorted, but again I don't know. 

That said, if there is a choke effect, wouldn't it just effectively increase ground resistance? Not something you'd come in afterwards and find a scorched pattern and say "oh yeah look at that there was some kind of choke effect here." It would just mean that surge protective devices don't work as well as they should. Maybe it would mean that the utility OCPD took longer to blow.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Some areas are allowed to bring the GEC into the meter. In my area we are not, and the PoCo who specs and supplies the meter from Milbank gets meters without that little lug for the GEC you spoke about that comes on most meter pans.
> 
> As for why it's being included in this conversation, I guess because the NEC allows you to bring the GEC into either the service disco (main panel included) or the meter pan. Since it's code compliant and also a common thing in any areas, I think it applies to this discussion.
> 
> Either way, panel or meter pan, the bonding of the GEC is not necessary as it enters.


With regard to your last statement , after reading & keeping up with
the conversation , I have determined that a 1/2" pvc terminal adapter , 
through a 1/2" knock out and allowing my #4 bare GEC to pass through 
into my panel board grounding/bonding bar will eliminate the possibility
of choking . I will secure it before the pvc TA with a romex staple...

I will then call it a day.

The guy (Hd something another) has said he does not engage
in residential or commercial , which in my mind leaves Industrial.

It's possible he may be in a completely different world...probably
in the over 1000 amps category , maybe even the over 600 volt 
category???


----------



## eddy current

brian john said:


> I said I will perform a test and ask for suggestions for a setup.
> 
> *To date no helpful responses*.
> 
> I suggest
> 
> Grounded enclosure
> 1/4 hole, #4 AWG bare
> amp clamp inside and outside the enclosure
> 5,000 amps then 10,000 amps
> Infrared camera
> 
> same test with kenny crap.





eddy current said:


> After you do the test with a bonded enclosure,could you create an actual choke using a short piece of conduit and show the difference?


Compare to an actual choke as well.


----------



## splatz

BTW, I still like the idea of a Kenny clamp for a more mechanically solid install and redundancy for the ground connection to the enclosure, but I'm silly like that, I'll blow $3 on something just because I don't like the idea of a loose wire rattling around in a hole in sheet metal.


----------



## splatz

eddy current said:


> Compare to an actual choke as well.


And a long piece of conduit - I am curious how long it has to get before you see some real choke effect.


----------



## Navyguy

lighterup said:


> The clarification I would like input on is , "why are some including the topic of the GEC , ferrous metal enclosures and preventing "choking" along with the topic of the "meter socket enclosure"?


I talk about it from a CEC perspective where it is common and required on multi-ganged installations (Ontario). If that adds confusion, it was not my intention; apologies. As far as panels, in Canada we have the separated "Service Entrance" area where we would land a GEC in a single meter installation.

In in Canada (I believe all of it) the LEC supplies everything but must comply with the POCO specs. So in one city / region / province I might use one type of meter socket but need a different one somewhere else. The major difference for us usually is the requirement of "stud type" connection to the line side of the meter socket if it is underground; some are sizing, etc. Some POCOs will allow two separate services while other want a single multi-ganged service, etc.

Unlike the a vast amount of the USA, the POCO are pretty particular about an LEC cutting seals, disconnecting the overhead / underground supply, etc; essentially we cannot do any of that type of stuff; they get pretty "wrapped around the axle" if we get into their space.

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork

splatz said:


> I am going to say I am skeptical that the choke effect of an enclosure around a conductor is significant even if it passes through the enclosure without making contact. I thought chokes had to have windings like transformers do to get the multiplier effect. But I don't know.
> 
> I'm even more skeptical that a conductor that there's ANY choke effect when the conductor is bonded to the enclosure inside, I'd think that's like having the transformer windings shorted, but again I don't know.
> 
> That said, if there is a choke effect, wouldn't it just effectively increase ground resistance? Not something you'd come in afterwards and find a scorched pattern and say "oh yeah look at that there was some kind of choke effect here." It would just mean that surge protective devices don't work as well as they should. Maybe it would mean that the utility OCPD took longer to blow.


I will openly admit that the actual choke stuff is above my intelligence level. I am only going by code and what people can cite in real world events (up until now, nothing).

Most of my posts have been in response to the posts saying that it is dangerous, a hazard, a nightmare will erupt, the voltage differential EXPLODES, how "it's more than enough to strike you dead and launch the building into flames", etc. etc. :laughing:

If the event may be a bit more tame, such as delayed tripping of the OCPD, then I would expect to see something citing that, as well as a code change.


----------



## Signal1

Navyguy said:


> Do you have something that can create a 100 million+ volts and 20 thousand+ amps?
> 
> That would be cool to see...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


Based on the type of work he does, I would bet he has the sufficient equipment for such a test.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> With regard to your last statement , after reading & keeping up with
> the conversation , I have determined that a 1/2" pvc terminal adapter ,
> through a 1/2" knock out and allowing my #4 bare GEC to pass through
> into my panel board grounding/bonding bar will eliminate the possibility
> of choking . I will secure it before the pvc TA with a romex staple...
> 
> I will then call it a day.


That would leave too large of a hole around the GEC since the inside of the TA is much larger. The PVC TA is electrically invisible so using it wouldn't help as far as the choke theory. And it's not a code requirement. 

So I would just use the little hole that the GEC fits snuggly thru.


----------



## HackWork

splatz said:


> BTW, I still like the idea of a Kenny clamp for a more mechanically solid install and redundancy for the ground connection to the enclosure, but I'm silly like that, I'll blow $3 on something just because I don't like the idea of a loose wire rattling around in a hole in sheet metal.


I keep asking this. Where do you find the Kenny clamp for $3??

Last I looked they were $9. I believe I found it as cheap as $7 but with a minimum order.


----------



## splatz

lighterup said:


> With regard to your last statement , after reading & keeping up with
> the conversation , I have determined that a 1/2" pvc terminal adapter ,
> through a 1/2" knock out and allowing my #4 bare GEC to pass through
> into my panel board grounding/bonding bar will eliminate the possibility
> of choking . I will secure it before the pvc TA with a romex staple...
> 
> I will then call it a day.


Whoa whoa whoa there. Are you going to let that pass through a ferrous metal locknut / mini induction choke? You're playing with fire man.


----------



## splatz

HackWork said:


> I keep asking this. Where do you find the Kenny clamp for $3??
> 
> Last I looked they were $9. I believe I found it as cheap as $7 but with a minimum order.


The Arlington one @mdnitedrftr posted is like $3. 

http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/g...ation-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50


----------



## HackWork

splatz said:


> The Arlington one @mdnitedrftr posted is like $3.
> 
> http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/g...ation-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50


But not the Kenny clamp. 

In addition to the false advertising, this is another reason why "Kenny" should be executed.


----------



## Switched

splatz said:


> The Arlington one @mdnitedrftr posted is like $3.
> 
> http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/g...ation-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50


I bet the inspector would ask where your bonding bushing is for that connector... I know a few around here who would. Most though would ask why you are using it....:whistling2:


----------



## splatz

HackWork said:


> But not the Kenny clamp.
> 
> In addition to the false advertising, this is another reason why "Kenny" should be executed.


I was thinking since Arlington is on the kennyclamp.com page as an OEM that was a Kenny clamp. Now I see Arlington also makes the collet type as well as the set screw type, e.g. the KC6 

The link to Galvan on the Kennyclamp.com site has them for $5.86, less if you buy ten. But I like the arlington one for $3 just fine, looks like a nice strain relief, fits a wide range of wires.


----------



## emtnut

HackWork said:


> Post #1,000 is mine, I deserve it!!!
> 
> 
> I'll probably be banned by then :laughing::thumbup:


I'll have to concede ... you've worked hard for this :thumbsup:

If you get banned, I'll post in your honor


----------



## emtnut

HackWork said:


> But not the Kenny clamp.
> 
> In addition to the false advertising, this is another reason why "Kenny" should be executed.


I thought they already did


----------



## emtnut

brian john said:


> I said I will perform a test and ask for suggestions for a setup.
> 
> To date no helpful responses.
> 
> I suggest
> 
> Grounded enclosure
> 1/4 hole, #4 AWG bare
> amp clamp inside and outside the enclosure
> 5,000 amps then 10,000 amps
> Infrared camera
> 
> same test with kenny crap.


Correction to my post ... "Only a physicist or a Bad Electrician with a shop full of specialized equipment" could answer this question :thumbsup:


----------



## brian john

Navyguy said:


> Do you have something that can create a 100 million+ volts and 20 thousand+ amps?
> 
> That would be cool to see...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


I have one piece of test equipment that can generate 125 KV (very low amperage) another that can put out 90,000 amps (at a low voltage)


----------



## emtnut

brian john said:


> I have one piece of test equipment that can generate 125 KV (very low amperage) another that can put out 90,000 amps (at a low voltage)


I'd think since the inductor opposes current, the high current test would be the one to do.


----------



## HackWork

I could make like 20KV with my stove. Click click click click click POOF.


----------



## splatz

brian john said:


> I have one piece of test equipment that can generate 125 KV (very low amperage) another that can put out 90,000 amps (at a low voltage)


Do you have enough gear to do the UL 1469 test for surge protectors? It would be interesting to see if the MOVs pass more current with the kenny clamp. I imagine you'd have to repeat the test a few times because the MOVs are not perfectly identical.


----------



## lighterup

splatz said:


> Whoa whoa whoa there. Are you going to let that pass through a ferrous metal locknut / mini induction choke? You're playing with fire man.


:laughing::laughing:You got it!

@ Hackworks , I was being a smart as*...I'm not going 
to put a pvc TA on the panel...but that simple application 
would blow up some other theories ...that's all.


----------



## macmikeman

I am of the steadfast opinion and am preparing my code change proposal as I write this one handed forum reply that when using this or a similar device,http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/grounding/versatile-termination-for-grounding-electrode-conductors/GC50 it should be bonded at both ends of the device to prevent choke during a high voltage surge or lightning strike. And therefore will be shortly releasing my newest Mikey clamp devices $65ea in boxes of ten, that will be advertised as meeting code which connect to each end of Kenny clamps thereby preventing choke effect internal to as we all know Kenny Clamps produce such effects. 

And later, when our tech's get the bugs worked out of it, we will be producing the newest device after the Mikey Clamp , which will be called the Cricket Clamp , in honor of camping enthusiasts everywhere, that will fit onto each end of the Mikey clamps, preventing choke effects in the Mikey clamps ,which are designed to prevent choke inside of the Kenny clamps, which are designed to make Kenny rich. MAGA!


----------



## lighterup

over 27 hours...the soothing sound of silence...

Hey emtnut , you'll never see that 1000th post..
HA-HAHAHAHA


----------



## eddy current

#769 right here


----------



## HackWork

#780


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> #780


Your jumping ahead. Lol


Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

^I meant #770. I was wrong, I made a mistake.


You see how easy that was Steve?

#771.


----------



## HackWork

Edit, damn you trenton, you made me wrong again!


----------



## eddy current

HackWork said:


> ^I meant #770. I was wrong, I made a mistake.
> 
> 
> You see how easy that was Steve?
> 
> #771.


K. That actually made me lol :vs_laugh:


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> Edit, damn you trenton, you made me wrong again!


I wasnt calling you out...just referring you to the book....

The math book. Lol

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

#776


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> #776


I'm taking one of my posts back ...775


----------



## emtnut

lighterup said:


> over 27 hours...the soothing sound of silence...
> 
> Hey emtnut , you'll never see that 1000th post..
> HA-HAHAHAHA


There's hope yet !

For the record, I want post #1001 now, I'm leaving the #1000 milestone for Hax


Or maybe post 2112 ... unless @John Valdes uses his new powers to delete it an take it for himself


----------



## brian john

emtnut said:


> There's hope yet !
> 
> For the record, I want post #1001 now, I'm leaving the #1000 milestone for Hax
> 
> 
> Or maybe post 2112 ... unless @John Valdes uses his new powers to delete it an take it for himself



Eğer Tavuk postalamak için topları olsaydı, ya bu ipliği kapatırdık ya da posta sayımını bitirirdik.


----------



## sbrn33

Die Hard


----------



## brian john

Yedi yüz seks

WRONG


----------



## 99cents

39 pages? The OP has probably cashed in and is smoking cigars on the beach by now.


----------



## lighterup

brian john said:


> Yedi yüz seks
> 
> WRONG


Yedi's love sex?


----------



## flyboy

lighterup said:


> Yedi's love sex?


If Sasquatches love sex, how come there isn't more of them? :devil3:


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Yedi's love sex?


Have you watched _Discovering Bigfoot_ yet? It's on Netflix.


----------



## emtnut

Is that the series that just ended ??


----------



## sbrn33

Can we please get back to the kenny clamp issue. I still haven't made up my mind and you crackers are talking about bigfoot.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

sbrn33 said:


> Can we please get back to the kenny clamp issue. I still haven't made up my mind and you crackers are talking about bigfoot.


I agree-- we have off topic area for this bantor. I realize you want to hit a thousand posts but make it challenging and do it on topic...:vs_OMG:

For me the answer is simple. The hole is there and I have seen info where the manufacturer states that the hole is to be used for the grounding electrode conductor.

In this area almost every residential service is done this way. The issue is whether the grounding electrode conductor can cause a choke effect as it does if the wire is run thru a metal conduit. I don't believe that is an issue.


----------



## sbrn33

Hi Dennis. How have you been.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> I agree-- we have off topic area for this bantor. I realize you want to hit a thousand posts but make it challenging and do it on topic...:vs_OMG:
> 
> For me the answer is simple. The hole is there and I have seen info where the manufacturer states that the hole is to be used for the grounding electrode conductor.
> 
> In this area almost every residential service is done this way. The issue is whether the grounding electrode conductor can cause a choke effect as it does if the wire is run thru a metal conduit. I don't believe that is an issue.


Very true. You left out one big factor, that there is no code requirement to use a device to bond the GEC as it enters the panel.


@chicken steve, the floor is yours.


----------



## 360max

HackWork said:


> Dennis Alwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree-- we have off topic area for this bantor. I realize you want to hit a thousand posts but make it challenging and do it on topic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me the answer is simple. The hole is there and I have seen info where the manufacturer states that the hole is to be used for the grounding electrode conductor.
> 
> In this area almost every residential service is done this way. The issue is whether the grounding electrode conductor can cause a choke effect as it does if the wire is run thru a metal conduit. I don't believe that is an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. You left out one big factor, that there is no code requirement to use a device to bond the GEC as it enters the panel.
> 
> 
> @chicken steve....
Click to expand...


----------



## Jlarson

This is some grade A+ ****ery.


----------



## chicken steve

Dennis Alwon said:


> I agree-- we have off topic area for this bantor. I realize you want to hit a thousand posts but make it challenging and do it on topic...:vs_OMG:
> 
> For me the answer is simple. The hole is there and I have seen info where the manufacturer states that the hole is to be used for the grounding electrode conductor.
> 
> In this area almost every residential service is done this way. The issue is whether the grounding electrode conductor can cause a choke effect as it does if the wire is run thru a metal conduit. I don't believe that is an issue.


It's not so _simple_ Dennis

We've multiple manufacturer reps forwarding opinions that _conflict_, none of which have (or can?) forward a listing requirement

We've a fairly recent code (2011) dictating a _change_ in our installs

We've multiple codes that could be _interpreted_ as requiring said change

We've Kenny , and it's Bridgeport competitor_ (as far as i can tell only two manufacturers of a GEC clamp exist)_ insisting it's '_code_' to use their product 

We've this electrical theory mobius logic loop looking to come to rest on an NEC code.


Two camps have resulted >>>

The '*Done it this way for XXX years*" camp

_as well as the_ >>>

*'Possible issue , needs resolve'* camp


Now you should know I purposely have *NOT* responded to the howlings of the first camp, and have been asked by one mod to '_let it go'_

As this now appears to be applicable to one _sole_ poster, _your's truly_, i will consider it invalidated and no longer honor it 

So, we've two choices

*Choice one* is to continue the '_court of public opinion_' , which is fruitless and NOT pretty, speaking for itself at this point....

*Choice two* is to collectively venture and aspire higher professional opinion. This would exist in the _likes_ of Charlie Trouts 'code of the day', the Jeff Sargents of the nfpa formal interpretations , possibly a 780EE 

*Pro* _alley_ , or more _idiotic_ *Pro*_fanity_

It's up to the ET crew

Thx:vs_cool:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

> We've multiple manufacturer reps forwarding opinions that _conflict_, none of which have (or can?) forward a listing requirement


 This is false. The manufacturers say that the hole is listed for that purpose, that is all that matters. The only "conflict" is the local sales guy that you asked, who clearly doesn't do the technical side of this. And here's the thing, why haven't YOU brought him the information from Milbank engineers that conflict with what he said? The answer is because you know he would admit that he was wrong, which means you would have to do the same.



> We've a fairly recent code (2011) dictating a _change_ in our installs
> 
> We've multiple codes that could be _interpreted_ as requiring said change


 There is no code change that requires you to bond the GEC as it enters a panel.



> We've Kenny , and it's Bridgeport competitor_ (as far as i can tell only two manufacturers of a GEC clamp exist)_ insisting it's '_code_' to use their product


 No one cares if a manufacturer advertises that it's "code" to use their products. That is meaningless. The fact that you would stand on a product's internet advertising to say that something is required by code is absolutely idiotic. 



> We've this electrical theory mobius logic loop looking to come to rest on an NEC code.


 NEC code is all that matters. Nothing else is required. The NEC clearly does NOT require you to bond the GEC as it enters a panel because there is no reason to do so. There is no danger, there have been no issues at all. You can't cite even one instance of a dangerous event happening from it.



> Two camps have resulted >>>
> 
> The '*Done it this way for XXX years*" camp
> 
> _as well as the_ >>>
> 
> *'Possible issue , needs resolve'* camp


 No, this is false again. The 2 camps are:

1) There is no code that requires you to bond the GEC as it enters a panel. It has nothing to do with whether we did it for years or not. 99.9999% of people are in this camp.

2) This is the group that think they can just say whatever they want and not have to back it up with facts. This is your camp, and you may have up to 3 other people with hotdogs in your campfire.



> Now you should know I purposely have *NOT* responded to the howlings of the first camp, and have been asked by one mod to '_let it go'_


 All of a sudden you start listening when it's convenient for you? LOL. I GUARANTEE you that Valdes would have been perfectly fine with you actually bringing facts to the table. Such as information from the manufacturers that you said you had contacted...?



> So, we've two choices
> 
> *Choice one* is to continue the '_court of public opinion_' , which is fruitless and NOT pretty, speaking for itself at this point....


 It's not public opinion, it's blatant fact.



> *Choice two* is to collectively venture and aspire higher professional opinion. This would exist in the _likes_ of Charlie Trouts 'code of the day', the Jeff Sargents of the nfpa formal interpretations , possibly a 780EE


 Have you contacted them?

Have you done ANYTHING other than ignore the facts? I brought this to Mike Holt's in which everyone agreed that you are wrong. 

Let's just be clear, you went silent the second the Mibank engineers proved you wrong, which was WAY before Valdes ever asked you to let it go. 

So what have you done to resolve this? Have you sent the information to Rick Holbrook and asked him why he said the hole was for draining? Have you contacted the other manufacturers? I bet you have, but you won't tell us the answers because they all go against your silly theory that the GEC is required to be bonded as it enters a panel.


----------



## HackWork

Steve, I have a very simple plan for you.

1) Admit that there currently is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel.

2) Do research and try to find actual occurrences of the catastrophic events you say could happen.

3) If you succeed with #2, use that as substantiation and send in a proposal to the CMP for a code change requiring the GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel.

Is that not a reasonable course of action? What a professional should be doing?


----------



## Dennis Alwon

I believe Steve is saying that there are some meter base manufacturers reps who disagree with my statement. The issue I have, Steve, is that mfg reps often don't know this info. I have often called reps and asked them about their product with either false info or they have no idea.

Why is the hole there? If it were for water drainage then why leave it plugged. Most meter bases I have seen have 2 holes in the bottom back of the base were water can seep. I still believe if one mfg states that what the knockout is for then they are all the same. You may need to delve deeper than the reps.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> I believe Steve is saying that there are some meter base manufacturers reps who disagree with my statement.


The only person who disagreed was a local sales rep, and we confirmed with Milbank that he was incorrect. Steve should take that up with that sales rep and see what he says, I asked him to do that a week ago but he refused and played his game of ignoring everything.



> The issue I have, Steve, is that mfg reps often don't know this info. I have often called reps and asked them about their product with either false info or they have no idea.
> 
> Why is the hole there? If it were for water drainage then why leave it plugged. Most meter bases I have seen have 2 holes in the bottom back of the base were water can seep. I still believe if one mfg states that what the knockout is for then they are all the same. You may need to delve deeper than the reps.


 Did you see this thread? http://www.electriciantalk.com/f105/i-would-like-ask-real-higher-up-engineer-question-240418/

I don't think you can ask for better confirmation.

IMO, this whole thing goes further. Even if all the manufacturers were to say that the small hole is not for the GEC, that still doesn't change the fact that there is no requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel/meter.


----------



## trentonmakes

I cannot believe this is still going! Lol

Im still fairly green, ok very green, but even I can understand what the code is saying and differentiating from sleeves or enclosures and terminating in the panel.

There may be a better way, safer can be debated to death, but as far as what code says and is required, IMHO there is not much to debate about.

Texting and Driving


----------



## macmikeman

Oh the ASCI and vicious hubris of this thread pains me so in my Hallux, my Minimus, my Purlicue, and also my Fraenum, my Gowpen, my Uvula, Filtrum, Gynaecomastia, Canthus, Gnathion, and my Glabella.


----------



## sbrn33

Steve, you know that we know that no mod contacted you and told you to refrain.


----------



## chicken steve

Dennis Alwon said:


> I believe Steve is saying that there are some meter base manufacturers reps who disagree with my statement. The issue I have, Steve, is that mfg reps often don't know this info. I have often called reps and asked them about their product with either false info or they have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , i can imagine there is a dif in a manufacturing _sales_ rep, and any given manufacturing _engineering_ rep
> 
> But how are _we_ suppose to know the difference, especially if we're obtaining _conflicting_ responses?
> 
> What _might_ help is, if any one of them could point out the 1/4" hole in question as being listed via 250.8 (A) (8)
> 
> *If* the 1/4" hole meets the requirements of 250.64(e)(1), particularly >>
> 
> _" from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to
> the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
> ground clamp or fitting"_
> 
> *If* running a GEC through the 1/4" hole is considered meeting 312.5 (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner
> 
> I won't bother with the other codes , i'm sure you get the jist
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You may need to delve deeper than the reps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be _nice_ ....and i _have_ asked....
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## trentonmakes

Thanks for responding!

However, 

250.8 (A)
Is talking about methods to connect the GEC and (2) clearly lists terminal bars.













ETA 250.8 (7)
Connections as part of listed assembly

So that seems to resolve that issue assuming its terminated properly inside the panel.

312.5
Seems to be the only leg you have to stand on. Approved manner ... Approved by who?
I would think thats left to AHJ

Protected from abrasion....
I think you make a good argument for this but then again it is ultimately left for the AHJ to decide.



How'd I do???

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Yes , i can imagine there is a dif in a manufacturing _sales_ rep, and any given manufacturing _engineering_ rep
> 
> But how are _we_ suppose to know the difference, especially if we're obtaining _conflicting_ responses?


 You are asking how we are supposed to know the difference between your local sales rep and the Milbank engineering team that we contacted? 

I think the difference is clear, one is an authority on the matter and the other is a salesman. But we could easily fix this by you just asking good ol' Rick Halbrook why his information is different than Milbank's engineering team, I am sure he will concede. 



> What _might_ help is, if any one of them could point out the 1/4" hole in question as being listed via 250.8 (A) (8)


 A listing has absolutely nothing to do with code, and you know it. The product is listed to use that hole for the GEC. As long as the code doesn't prohibit that, which it doesn't, then it is compliant to run the GEC into it.



> *If* the 1/4" hole meets the requirements of 250.64(e)(1), particularly >>
> 
> _" from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to
> the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
> ground clamp or fitting"_
> 
> *If* running a GEC through the 1/4" hole is considered meeting 312.5 (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner
> 
> I won't bother with the other codes , i'm sure you get the jist
> 
> .
> 
> That would be _nice_ ....and i _have_ asked....
> 
> ~CS~


Every single ones of these other code articles that you posted have been refuted. And you ignored it each and every time. They do not prohibit a GEC from entering the small hole of a panel or meter pan.

How can anyone have a discussion with you when you literally ignore everything? All of your claims have been refuted in this thread ad nauseam, yet here you are posting the same nonsense.


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> You are asking how we are supposed to know the difference between your local sales rep and the Milbank engineering team that we contacted?
> 
> I think the difference is clear, one is an authority on the matter and the other is a salesman. But we could easily fix this by you just asking good ol' Rick Halbrook why his information is different than Milbank's engineering team, I am sure he will concede.
> 
> A listing has absolutely nothing to do with code, and you know it. The product is listed to use that hole for the GEC. As long as the code doesn't prohibit that, which it doesn't, then it is compliant to run the GEC into it.
> 
> 
> Every single ones of these other code articles that you posted have been refuted. And you ignored it each and every time. They do not prohibit a GEC from entering the small hole of a panel or meter pan.
> 
> How can anyone have a discussion with you when you literally ignore everything? All of your claims have been refuted in this thread ad nauseam, yet here you are posting the same nonsense.


Well sh×t
I could have just scrolled up?
[emoji14]

Texting and Driving


----------



## chicken steve

trentonmakes said:


> Thanks for responding!
> 
> How'd I do???


Grand, and that would have been _egggg_zactly my response to my AHJ _last _year....

_This _year i'm not so sure Trent.

If you've read me for a while, you probably know i have_ little _trust the manufacturing industry 

In fact, in the new millennia i'm rather convinced they_ profit_ rather well from manipulating the NEC cloaked in the _guise_ of safety.

But they've _marketed _their widgets , and _why _would they if they didn't have it all backed up by their CMP constituency parroting their cause?

Move it on over Kenny>>>
https://youtu.be/gjoPzahGS70?list=PL111F04751E406A94





~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Grand, and that would have been _egggg_zactly my response to my AHJ _last _year....
> 
> _This _year i'm not so sure Trent.


 Your AHJ has to show you a code article. Give me the name of any AHJ in Vermont who failed an inspection for not bonding the GEC as it enters the panel/meter. You can't and won't do that because it never happened. This is just more of you pulling BS out of thin air.



> If you've read me for a while, you probably know i have_ little _trust the manufacturing industry
> 
> In fact, in the new millennia i'm rather convinced they_ profit_ rather well from manipulating the NEC cloaked in the _guise_ of safety.


 Yet you are the very person who used Kenny Clamp's own advertisement to try to substantiate the need for a Kenny Clamp. The words in the advertisement were clearly not true, just a gimmick. But you used it to say that a GEC needs to be bonded, you took an advertisement over the NEC.

I don't understand how you can openly be such a hypocrite.



> But they've _marketed _their widgets , and _why _would they if they didn't have it all backed up by their CMP constituency parroting their cause?


 The CMP is NOT parroting the manufacturer's cause, *you are*.

The CMP has not made the Kenny clamp (or similar) a requirement. The only entity saying that it is required is you.

Again, how delusional must you be not to see this? You are the absolute only person who is fighting for a GEC to be bonded as it enters a panel.



> Move it on over Kenny>>>
> https://youtu.be/gjoPzahGS70?list=PL111F04751E406A94
> 
> [ur]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjoPzahGS70&list=PL111F04751E406A94[/url]
> ~CS~


Notice that they didn't cite any code requirement for the device to bond a GEC to a panel? You know why? Because it's optional.


----------



## chicken steve

Then there sure seems _no shortage_ of options Hax.....




























Arlington Industries
:vs_cool::vs_cool::vs_cool:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Then there sure seems _no shortage_ of options Hax.....
> 
> [IM]http://www.aifittings.com/landing/pages/gc50/images/pic-3.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> [IM]http://www.aifittings.com/landing/pages/gc50/images/install-1.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> [IM]http://www.aifittings.com/landing/pages/gc50/images/install-1.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> Arlington Industries
> :vs_cool::vs_cool::vs_cool:
> ~CS~


Yes, just like there are many options to bring romex into a panel, none of them are specifically required by code.

Funny how that is the ONLY thing you responded to. How about all the rest that refutes all your attempts to say that a GEC is required to be bonded? How about telling us how you contacted Rick Halbrook to ask why he gave different information that the Milbank engineering team?

Crickets...


----------



## MTW

I think it's fair to say that Steve will never admit that he is wrong on this issue. However, he still needs to be challenged for the benefit of anyone who might read his false information, particularly anyone young and coming up in the trade, or starting out on their own in business.


----------



## trentonmakes

chicken steve said:


> Then there sure seems _no shortage_ of options Hax.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arlington Industries
> :vs_cool::vs_cool::vs_cool:
> ~CS~


If that was used in a panel that would take up a desired spot!, IMO


Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> If that was used in a panel that would take up a desired spot!, IMO
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


And it would be literally throwing away money, for no other purpose than giving your profit to the manufacturers.

I thought Steve was on our side as far as that, but apparently he isn't. He is here promoting their products and lying about them being required by code.


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> So if you run your GEC in PVC to the panel, how do you bond it then ????


 <()>


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> <()>


That is not a code compliant installation.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> And it would be literally throwing away money, for no other purpose than giving your profit to the manufacturers.
> 
> I thought Steve was on our side as far as that, but apparently he isn't. He is here promoting their products and lying about them being required by code.


I would still use a .20 romex connector or plastic button instead of that $3 Arlington contraption anyway, if I had no 1/4" hole to use.


----------



## chicken steve

hd13 said:


> <()>


Well that's a tad different that the one Lighter poster hd

who makes it?

~CS~


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> That is not a code compliant installation.


And the writing is facing outward on the pvc! I would get my ass chewed out for that!

Texting and Driving


----------



## MTW

This is what a code compliant installation looks like:


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> This is what a code compliant installation looks like:
> 
> [im]https://scontent.fewr1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26165772_10159821850860716_2149675295430097004_n.jpg?oh=26193f4d7ae50e3ce050eb6e8cafd576&oe=5ABAF9ED[/img]


Yup, that is code compliant. hd13's isn't.


----------



## Wiresmith

chicken steve said:


> Well that's a tad different that the one Lighter poster hd
> 
> who makes it?
> 
> ~CS~


i dunno, just ran across the picture


----------



## sbrn33

chicken steve said:


> Grand, and that would have been _egggg_zactly my response to my AHJ _last _year....
> 
> _This _year i'm not so sure Trent.
> 
> If you've read me for a while, you probably know i have_ little _trust the manufacturing industry
> 
> In fact, in the new millennia i'm rather convinced they_ profit_ rather well from manipulating the NEC cloaked in the _guise_ of safety.
> 
> But they've _marketed _their widgets , and _why _would they if they didn't have it all backed up by their CMP constituency parroting their cause?
> 
> Move it on over Kenny>>>
> https://youtu.be/gjoPzahGS70?list=PL111F04751E406A94
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjoPzahGS70&list=PL111F04751E406A94
> ~CS~


Steve i watched that whole video. No where did they say required, they did say it meets code. As a IAEI certified inspector I would assume you would know the difference between required and meets code.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Just to be sure that I wasn't giving bad info, I went to Mike Holt's and confirmed what I said, that the GEC doesn't require any bonding as it enters the panel.
> 
> Some people might be confused by 250.64(E) because it is talking about "enclosures", but it is specifically talking about "Enclosures *for* Grounding Electrode Conductors". It doesn't apply to panels that the GEC merely enters.
> 
> Here is the proof:
> 
> 
> View attachment 118986


i know you believe in pics Hackwork

you might want to write a nasty letter to holt about him pushing these abominations called kenny clamps.


----------



## sbrn33

hd13 said:


> i know you believe in pics Hackwork
> 
> you might want to write a nasty letter to holt about him pushing these abominations called kenny clamps.


Show me in there where a kenny clamp is called out as required. Please.


----------



## HackWork

hd13, with all due respect, you continue to make yourself look ignorant.

No where in those pictures does it say a Kenny clamp or any other device is required.

If Mike Holt makes pictures with 2 screw romex connectors, does that mean that they are required to be used and button connectors are prohibited??

Those pictures show metallic raceways, does that mean that you can't use PVC??

This is 3rd grade level comprehension. You really need to learn how the code works.


----------



## sbrn33

hd13 said:


> i know you believe in pics Hackwork
> 
> you might want to write a nasty letter to holt about him pushing these abominations called kenny clamps.


This is why I quit going to Mike Holts. IMO all of this needs to be cadwelded.


----------



## Wiresmith

sbrn33 said:


> Show me in there where a kenny clamp is called out as required. Please.


it doesn't, but hackwork showed a picture(the first one in that set i just posted) that didn't have anything to do with a wire going through the 1/4" hole and says it somehow shows kenny clamps aren't required.

i think the holt thing is more of a subliminal messaging thing, he must be on the take from kenny

i think of holt's stuff mainly geared toward code compliance only, i don't know of anything where he suggests going above and beyond code.


----------



## sbrn33

It would be fun to be HD13 right now. I wonder if he can admit he is wrong unlike stevie.


----------



## HackWork

I was very clear at least 10 times explaining that picture. It shows what an enclosure for a GEC is. The picture shows a trough for the purpose of protecting the GEC, just like the raceway. That's what 250.64(E) is talking about.

The fact that you don't understand such simple things amazes me.


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> Grand, and that would have been _egggg_zactly my response to my AHJ _last _year....
> 
> _This _year i'm not so sure Trent.
> 
> If you've read me for a while, you probably know i have_ little _trust the manufacturing industry
> 
> In fact, in the new millennia i'm rather convinced they_ profit_ rather well from manipulating the NEC cloaked in the _guise_ of safety.
> 
> But they've _marketed _their widgets , and _why _would they if they didn't have it all backed up by their CMP constituency parroting their cause?
> 
> Move it on over Kenny>>>
> https://youtu.be/gjoPzahGS70?list=PL111F04751E406A94
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjoPzahGS70&list=PL111F04751E406A94
> ~CS~


well now that this has been posted , I do believe this 
will reach 1000


----------



## Dennis Alwon

HackWork said:


> hd13, with all due respect,
> 
> No where in those pictures does it say a Kenny clamp or any other device is required.


Well if you look at the picture with the meter it does show a clamp of some kind (I assume kenny clamp) but that does not mean that it is a required device.

I have never seen where Mike Holt has stated a kenny clamp is required but if he did, then he is entitled to his opinion. I have disagreed with his interpretations more than once.

The fact is if your inspector requires it then you will need to fight them on it. A simple call to the engineering department of the meter base mfg that you are using is where to get the proof.

Steve, I would be interested to see if you call the company that your rep works for and see if they have a different answer than he does.


----------



## Wiresmith

sbrn33 said:


> It would be fun to be HD13 right now. I wonder if he can admit he is wrong unlike stevie.


i don't believe i'm wrong. would gladly like to see this put to rest either way though. i don't understand how you can read 250.64(E) and somehow think a ferrous enclosure is exempted.

it appears some people think bonding the enclosure satisfies the code, but look at 250.64(E), bonding alone in a ferrous enclosure does not satisfy the code when it comes to GEC, it must be bonded at the ends. not just bonded. it says ferrous enclosures and raceways not just raceways.

i have posted the NEC code panel's discussion on this and it only makes me more confident in the way i'm reading the code.

i have posted articles on the actual scientific reason i believe it's code.

the only evidence i have seen against it
- the word FOR, which i believe the initial enclosure falls under that.
-i believe the 1/4" holes are for the GEC, but i often see things from manufacturers that i would not use or follow there direction.
-a picture that i believe is correct, but does not exempt or even hint at exempting the initial enclosure.
-how its been done that way a billion times, which i agree with and have seen it done a ton, this is never a good argument, for anything.
-someone saying they went to a house hit by lightning and said the GEC went through the 1/4" hole and they didn't see any problem. to this i say "you went to the house because there was a problem", i never said or believe the meter base will explode, i believe through research that eliminating this choke reduces damage done to the structure and system


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> it doesn't, but hackwork showed a picture(the first one in that set i just posted) that didn't have anything to do with a wire going through the 1/4" hole and says it somehow shows kenny clamps aren't required.
> 
> i think the holt thing is more of a subliminal messaging thing, he must be on the take from kenny
> 
> i think of holt's stuff mainly geared toward code compliance only, i don't know of anything where he suggests going above and beyond code.


Glad you found a picture of the GEC passing THROUGH an enclosure.... We're all waiting for the picture of a kenny clamp or bond where it TERMINATES !

:yes:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> That is not a code compliant installation.


I'm steppin up to the plate with Hackworks here...

a) the ground shown appears to be #10 at best
(I think it's #12 and is probably running to phone
co or tv co)
b) service GEC (which is the topic) is Minimum #6

c) why are you bonding pvc? ..again one more time , I
must have missed it


----------



## Wiresmith

have you ever used the little bridge on receptacles? I've heard from tons of people where they say it has burnt in two and to not use it. give me a minute i'll try to think of some more


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> I'm steppin up to the plate with Hackworks here...
> 
> a) the ground shown appears to be #10 at best
> (I think it's #12 and is probably running to phone
> co or tv co)
> b) service GEC (which is the topic) is Minimum #6
> 
> c) why are you bonding pvc? ..again one more time , I
> must have missed it


u cant see the gec in the pic it is inside the fitting and the pvc conduit, the fitting clamps down onto it


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> u cant see the gec in the pic it is inside the fitting and the pvc conduit, the fitting clamps down onto it


No. my picture is not showing the GEC. ..the one I see 
is #10 or #12 on the outside of the bridgeport grounding 
clamp.


----------



## Wiresmith

i'm not calling anyone a hack for running the GEC through the hole or another way of not bonding in the past , that is standard operating procedure for probably most. i'm just trying to offer what i have found to possibly help you all in the future.


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> No. my picture is not showing the GEC. ..the one I see
> is #10 or #12 on the outside of the bridgeport grounding
> clamp.


correct, you cannot see the GEC

it is inside the fitting and pvc conduit

the fitting clamps down on it

the GEC runs through the fitting (inside it)

the little wire is for inter-system bonding, the fitting also serves as an inter-system bonding bridge


----------



## chicken steve

Dennis Alwon said:


> The fact is if your inspector requires it then you will need to fight them on it. A simple call to the engineering department of the meter base mfg that you are using is where to get the proof.
> 
> Steve, I would be interested to see if you call the company that your rep works for and see if they have a different answer than he does.


At this point i've probably a good dz emails to reps Dennis , but yes i may need to make a call specifically asking for the engineering dept.

The thing is though, we're _not_ talking just meters

we're talking _all_ enclosures a GEC could be run into

the code ref is *110.28 Enclosure Types. * 

So , in _reality _i'd need to contact quite a few people to gain what would perhaps be a group _engineering_ consensus from panel, meter, T swith and troffer manufacturers, .....rather a sisyphean feat 

Where's Charlie Trout when he's needed?

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> Dennis Alwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , i can imagine there is a dif in a manufacturing _sales_ rep, and any given manufacturing _engineering_ rep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how are _we_ suppose to know the difference, especially if we're obtaining _conflicting_ responses?
> 
> What _might_ help is, if any one of them could point out the 1/4" hole in question as being listed via 250.8 (A) (8)
> 
> *If* the 1/4" hole meets the requirements of 250.64(e)(1), particularly >>
> 
> _" from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to
> the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the
> ground clamp or fitting"_
> 
> *If* running a GEC through the 1/4" hole is considered meeting 312.5 (A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner
> 
> I won't bother with the other codes , i'm sure you get the jist
> 
> .
> 
> That would be _nice_ ....and i _have_ asked....
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where 312.5A speaks of *conductors*...
> 
> In Lighterup world , a GEC is an non current carrying conductor.
> 
> Isn't this a different topic?...*conductor* vs *non current carrying* conductor?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dennis Alwon

HD-- 250.64(E) does talk about bonding enclosures... When you connect the grounding electrode conductor to the meter base then the enclosure is bonded so what is the issue with going thru the hole without a clamp. 250.64 says if it is in a ferrous raceway then the conduit must be bonded but in the case we are speaking about there is no raceway and the enclosure is bonded.

If you passed the equipment grounding conductor thru the enclosure without bonding it then there may be an issue- IDK


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> correct, you cannot see the GEC
> 
> it is inside the fitting and pvc conduit
> 
> the fitting clamps down on it
> 
> the GEC runs through the fitting (inside it)
> 
> the little wire is for inter-system bonding, the fitting also serves as an inter-system bonding bridge


I misunderstood the point of the illustration:vs_cool:


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> where 312.5A speaks of *conductors*...
> 
> In Lighterup world , a GEC is an non current carrying conductor.
> 
> Isn't this a different topic?...*conductor* vs *non current carrying* conductor?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 312.5A addressed _conductors_, (C) addresses _cables_
> 
> The HB commentary alluding to '_clamps_' for single or multiple cables.....
> 
> I'll side with a GEC being a _conductor_.....
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...


----------



## lighterup

chicken steve said:


> lighterup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 312.5A addressed _conductors_, (C) addresses _cables_
> 
> The HB commentary alluding to '_clamps_' for single or multiple cables.....
> 
> I'll side with a GEC being a _conductor_.....
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a difference , hence the reason a GEC is allowed to
> be be bare (not sheathed in thhn , thwn etc...)
> 
> example , before the main , the neutral conductor is allowed
> to be bare , (SEU is an example), but after the main , it is
> not allowed to be bare because it is a current carrying conductor.
> 
> The GEC , including egc's in branch circuits can still be bare cause
> they too are non current carrying conductors.
> 
> I would think this is an important distinction when we are
> discussing means of entering a cabinet or physical protection etc.
> 
> I don't want to derail the thread , so I'm not going to respond
> further on this at this time .
Click to expand...


----------



## Wiresmith

Dennis Alwon said:


> HD-- 250.64(E) does talk about bonding enclosures... When you connect the grounding electrode conductor to the meter base then the enclosure is bonded so what is the issue with going thru the hole without a clamp. 250.64 says if it is in a ferrous raceway then the conduit must be bonded but in the case we are speaking about there is no raceway and the enclosure is bonded.
> 
> If you passed the equipment grounding conductor thru the enclosure without bonding it then there may be an issue- IDK


the bonding on both ends also applies to enclosures, there will be a choke even if the GEC is bonded, it has to be bonded at the ends (where the GEC exits enclosing ferrous material) to create a parallel current path.

to help illustrate what we are dealing with, early on i posted(post#300 page 15) an article about a neutral(bonded/grounded conductor) running through a conduit without the other conductors, and it heated up the metal around it to red hot

the GEC is different than other conductors, it is the designated hitter for lightning, it is the designated and desired path to earth

lightning can have extremely high frequencies and currents, which raise the choke effect


----------



## Wiresmith

#845
no way

a $5 connector


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a difference , hence the reason a GEC is allowed to
> be be bare (not sheathed in thhn , thwn etc...)
> 
> example , before the main , the neutral conductor is allowed
> to be bare , (SEU is an example), but after the main , it is
> not allowed to be bare because it is a current carrying conductor.
> 
> The GEC , including egc's in branch circuits can still be bare cause
> they too are non current carrying conductors.
> 
> I would think this is an important distinction when we are
> discussing means of entering a cabinet or physical protection etc.
> 
> I don't want to derail the thread , so I'm not going to respond
> further on this at this time .
> 
> 
> 
> you might get a kick out of
> 
> NEC article 398 open wiring
Click to expand...


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> #845
> no way
> 
> a $5 connector


It doesn't matter if this goes 50 million pages, or if the connector costs five cents. You still haven't provided a single valid reason to use it, everyone knows it's not required and serves no purpose, no one is going to use it.


----------



## sbrn33

hd13 said:


> the bonding on both ends also applies to enclosures, there will be a choke even if the GEC is bonded, it has to be bonded at the ends (where the GEC exits enclosing ferrous material) to create a parallel current path.
> 
> to help illustrate what we are dealing with, early on i posted(post#300 page 15) an article about a neutral(bonded/grounded conductor) running* through a conduit *without the other conductors, and it heated up the metal around it to red hot
> 
> the GEC is different than other conductors, it is the designated hitter for lightning, it is the designated and desired path to earth
> 
> lightning can have extremely high frequencies and currents, which raise the choke effect


please read.


----------



## chicken steve

lighterup said:


> I would think this is an important distinction when we are
> discussing means of entering a cabinet or physical protection etc.
> 
> .


In as '_no insulation to compromise_' , i'd have to agree Lighter.


~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

sbrn33 said:


> please read.


yep, it is not exactly the same thing as what we are talking about, i agree.


i only posted that for a related example of the physics


i don't understand the argument though, lightning current will not originate in the meter base it would be running THROUGH it

you can look at the GEC as running through it if you look at the neutrals or grounds exiting the enclosure


----------



## Wiresmith

<()>


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> yep, it is not exactly the same thing as what we are talking about, i agree.
> 
> 
> i only posted that for a related example of the physics
> 
> 
> i don't understand the argument though, lightning current will not originate in the meter base it would be running THROUGH it
> 
> you can look at the GEC as running through it if you look at the neutrals or grounds leaving out of the enclosure another way


No one cares what you think about physics. You don't understand basic code, why would you think you can teach physics?

If there were even the tiniest little reason to bond the GEC as it enters the panel/meter, it would be required. The CMP purposely doesn't require it because there is no reason.

As been explained to you many times, this has been discussed for decades and in all that time they chose not to make it a code requirement. Yet you and steve are so delusional that you think you are posting groundbreaking evidence and everyone should thank you. Your arrogance is laughable:



hd13 said:


> i'm just trying to offer what i have found to possibly help you all in the future.


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> the bonding on both ends also applies to enclosures, there will be a choke even if the GEC is bonded, it has to be bonded at the ends (where the GEC exits enclosing ferrous material) to create a parallel current path.
> 
> to help illustrate what we are dealing with, early on i posted(post#300 page 15) an article about a neutral(bonded/grounded conductor) running through a conduit without the other conductors, and it heated up the metal around it to red hot
> 
> the GEC is different than other conductors, it is the designated hitter for lightning, it is the designated and desired path to earth
> 
> lightning can have extremely high frequencies and currents, which raise the choke effect


The article you posted in #300 was in a CONDUIT !

There is a BIG difference between conduit and an enclosure, and whether the GEC passes THRU it .


----------



## lighterup

hd13 said:


> <()>


is this what I think it it is?


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> No one cares what you think about physics. You don't understand basic code, why would you think you can teach physics?
> 
> If there were even the tiniest little reason to bond the GEC as it enters the panel/meter, it would be required. The CMP purposely doesn't require it because there is no reason.
> 
> As been explained to you many times, this has been discussed for decades and in all that time they chose not to make it a code requirement. Yet you and steve are so delusional that you think you are posting groundbreaking evidence and everyone should thank you. Your arrogance is laughable:


reading that, i just feel like your head:vs_mad: is about to explode


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> yep, it is not exactly the same thing as what we are talking about, i agree.
> 
> 
> i only posted that for a related example of the physics
> 
> 
> i don't understand the argument though, lightning current will not originate in the meter base it would be running THROUGH it
> 
> you can look at the GEC as running through it if you look at the neutrals or grounds exiting the enclosure


I posted my understanding of the physics in post #387 pg 20.

What's yours ?


Really now, lightning or fault current can run on the EGC on a 4 square ... should we bond on exit there too ?


----------



## trentonmakes

emtnut said:


> I posted my understanding of the physics in post #387 pg 20.
> 
> What's yours ?
> 
> 
> Really now, lightning or fault current can run on the EGC on a 4 square ... should we bond on exit there too ?


Hey, I asked that waaaaaaay back as well!
Lol



Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> reading that, i just feel like your head:vs_mad: is about to explode


No, not at all. I am just telling the truth. 

It's unfortunately that you can't backup your claims, and instead have to resort to such childish posts.


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> The article you posted in #300 was in a CONDUIT !
> 
> There is a BIG difference between conduit and an enclosure, and whether the GEC passes THRU it .




i agree, when i posted it and also when i mentioned it later, i said i posted it for a related example of the physics

it is not the same as a gec leaving a meter base

it shows the induction with the neutral (grounded and bonded to the conduit it is running through)


----------



## trentonmakes

I also would like to know the difference from terminating in a panel and the pic of where it is bonded in middle of enclosure.

The sleeve could be 10ft or longer and the enclosure, I assume could be several feet, yet it only shows 1 bonding connection in the center.


I take this as bonded is bonded, otherwise it would say you need to bond sleeves and enclosures every 3ft.



Texting and Driving


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> I posted my understanding of the physics in post #387 pg 20.
> 
> What's yours ?
> 
> 
> Really now, lightning or fault current can run on the EGC on a 4 square ... should we bond on exit there too ?






you dont need to bond egc where it exits a ferrous enclosure, the GEC is different, it is the desired connection to earth.



lightning current will run on anything


----------



## sbrn33

I am going out to eat soon. Probably have a decent rib eye. Please don't let this hit 1000 before I am back.


----------



## Wiresmith

trentonmakes said:


> I also would like to know the difference from terminating in a panel and the pic of where it is bonded in middle of enclosure.
> 
> The sleeve could be 10ft or longer and the enclosure, I assume could be several feet, yet it only shows 1 bonding connection in the center.
> 
> 
> I take this as bonded is bonded, otherwise it would say you need to bond sleeves and enclosures every 3ft.
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


the lug in the trough is not where it is bonding for 250.64(E) the only connection for that is where the GEC leaves the conduit and a jumper is ran back to the conduit. (creating a parallel path. using the enclosure and the GEC), the majority of the lightning current will run on the enclosure not the GEC running through the enclosure. until we run out of enclosure then as long as its bonded where the GEC leaves it, it will continue down the GEC effortlessly to earth.


in the context we are talking about, the ferrous conduits and ferrous enclosure can be seen as one ferrous enclosure surrounding the GEC (as long as they bond where they connect with each other)


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> *you dont need to bond egc where it exits a ferrous enclosure*, the GEC is different, it is the desired connection to earth.
> 
> 
> 
> lightning current will run on anything


Why not ? In a fault or surge, it could choke the return path !


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> the bonding on both ends also applies to enclosures, there will be a choke even if the GEC is bonded,* it has to be bonded at the ends (where the GEC exits enclosing ferrous material)* to create a parallel current path.


Every time you post this you leave out a word on purpose. Both ends would be where it ENTERS and exits. 

The GEC starts at the panel, it does not go through, there is no metal enclosure in PARALLEL with it unless it enters and leaves.

If you don’t understand what parallel means..........


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> Why not ? In a fault or surge, it could choke the return path !


return path to where?


lightning is connecting earth to sky



we want a good connection to earth under lightning current on the GEC, so less current arcs across things like that 4 square and gas lines and run through electronics


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> yep, it is not exactly the same thing as what we are talking about, i agree.
> 
> 
> i only posted that for a related example of the physics
> 
> 
> i don't understand the argument though, lightning current will not originate in the meter base it would be running THROUGH it
> 
> you can look at the GEC as running through it if you look at the neutrals or grounds exiting the enclosure


Your making stuff up. If it was required it would be in the code. The code is about the GEC and the GEC does not run through. Saying “you can look at it running through if you look at the neutral” is not how the code is to be followed.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Every time you post this you leave out a word on purpose. Both ends would be where it ENTERS and exits.
> 
> The GEC starts at the panel, it does not go through, there is no metal enclosure in PARALLEL with it unless it enters and leaves.
> 
> If you don’t understand what parallel means..........



parallel would also be like bonding in the middle and then where it exits, that portion would be parallel


the neutrals and grounds leave the other side of the panel


----------



## chicken steve

The parallel interpretation is the distance from _entry to termination_ Ed 

One is in parallel with the enclosure from A to B 

~CS~


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> The code is about the GEC and the GEC does not run through. Saying “you can look at it running through if you look at the neutral” is not how the code is to be followed.


 i agree

but the code does not say only if the gec runs through the enclosure


----------



## Wiresmith

does dennis get paid for this, we already beat this dead horse more than we should have and then he stirred the pot back up


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> parallel would also be like bonding in the middle and then where it exits, that portion would be parallel
> 
> 
> the neutrals and grounds leave the other side of the panel


Bottom line, the GEC does NOT go through.

Funny how you are including the neutral to try and prove your point.

Ok, let’s say the neutral is part of the equation. By code, if it is part of the GEC as you state, would it not have to be bonded as it enters?

Lol


----------



## sbrn33

chicken steve said:


> The parallel interpretation is the distance from _entry to termination_ Ed
> 
> One is in parallel with the enclosure from A to B
> 
> ~CS~



All I can say is wow. really just wow. Crazy part is that you actually say you study the code.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> The parallel interpretation is the distance from _entry to termination_ Ed
> 
> One is in parallel with the enclosure from A to B
> 
> ~CS~


Where is the entry?

So now only part of the enclosure is parallel? Show me where it says that in the code please? you guys make stuff up as you go here, this is fun


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> parallel would also be like bonding in the middle and then where it exits, that portion would be parallel
> 
> 
> the neutrals and grounds leave the other side of the panel


The problem is that you are the only person who sees it like this, and you are no one.

Don't be insulted, I am no one either. But my view coincides with everyone who has discussed this over the last couple decades, the code making panel, the manufacturers, the listing agencies, the AHJ's, etc. Everyone except for you and Steve.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Bottom line, the GEC does NOT go through.
> 
> Funny how you are including the neutral to try and prove your point.
> 
> Ok, let’s say the neutral is part of the equation. By code, if it is part of the GEC as you state, would it not have to be bonded as it enters?
> 
> Lol




it is not the GEC or part of it, it is connected to it


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i agree
> 
> but the code does not say only if the gec runs through the enclosure


But it _does_ say that it only applies to "Enclosures FOR the GEC". It couldn't get any clearer.


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> return path to where?
> 
> 
> lightning is connecting earth to sky
> 
> 
> 
> we want a good connection to earth under lightning current on the GEC, so less current arcs across things like that 4 square and gas lines and run through electronics


I've only inspected one residence that was struck by lightning.

But I saw device boxes that had been 'blown' out of the wall.
The panel was still intact, even though the GEC was not bonded on exit.


----------



## Wiresmith

eddy current said:


> Where is the entry?
> 
> So now part of the enclosure is parallel, you guys make stuff up as you go here, this is fun


whatever way and every-way lightning decides to


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> I've only inspected one residence that was struck by lightning.
> 
> But I saw device boxes that had been 'blown' out of the wall.
> The panel was still intact, even though the GEC was not bonded on exit.


exactly

if the system had a better/more desirable connection to earth, the damage would have been less


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> i agree
> 
> but the code does not say only if the gec runs through the enclosure


How can you bond both ends without it going through?

In the CEC, we have the same code. We have an appendix that explains codes at the back of the book. They included a great illustration of what the code means. It was already posted on this thread a few times.

If it was talking about what your saying, it would be illustrated and explained but it is not.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> it is not the GEC or part of it, it is connected to it


Using that logic, the neutral is also connected to the hot.


----------



## Helmut

HackWork said:


> The problem is that you are the only person who sees it like this, and you are no one.
> 
> Don't be insulted, I am no one either. But my view coincides with everyone who has discussed this over the last couple decades, the code making panel, the manufacturers, the listing agencies, the AHJ's, etc. Everyone except for you and Steve.


So to sum this entire thread up:

A bunch of nobodys, disagree with more nobodys, and you're still being an asshole.


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> does dennis get paid for this, we already beat this dead horse more than we should have and then he stirred the pot back up


Dennis only got involved when we started off topic.
After that, he only posted his opinion.


----------



## eddy current

Helmut said:


> So to sum this entire thread up:
> 
> A bunch of nobodys, disagree with more nobodys, and you're still being an asshole.


And the code remains the same


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> exactly
> 
> if the system had a better/more desirable connection to earth, the damage would have been less


Apparently the panel thought the GEC was fine , the device boxes seemed to be the choke

Maybe we should wire them with #6 ?


----------



## Helmut

eddy current said:


> And the code remains the same


Yup, it remains open for interpretation.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> Steve, I would be interested to see if you call the company that your rep works for and see if they have a different answer than he does.


Dennis, did you see the thread in the Milbank forum??

The sales rep that Steve spoke with works for Milbank. And Milbank already confirmed that the small hole is for the GEC.


----------



## HackWork

emtnut said:


> Apparently the panel thought the GEC was fine , the device boxes seemed to be the choke
> 
> Maybe we should wire them with #6 ?


With bonding bushings on 3/4" pipe.


----------



## Wiresmith

emtnut said:


> Apparently the panel thought the GEC was fine , the device boxes seemed to be the choke
> 
> Maybe we should wire them with #6 ?




nope

if lightning had a better path to earth more of the current would have taken it(the better path)

thats electricity 101


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> But it _does_ say that it only applies to "Enclosures FOR the GEC". It couldn't get any clearer.



exactly

just like the guy earlier with the 4square

if it didn't say for gec then all ferrous enclosures in the system would have to be electrically continuous (in the way we are describing) to the grounding electrode


250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. *ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path*.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> nope
> 
> if lightning had a better path to earth more of the current would have taken it(the better path)
> 
> thats electricity 101


:sleep1:


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> :sleep1:


whats that mean? you slept in that class


----------



## Helmut

Both of you PLEASE keep trolling his ass, it's getting funny now. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

Does it say it must be bonded at each end of the enclosure? No-- from your quote HD. It says the raceway shall be bonded at each end. The enclosure is bonded when I land my grounding electrode conductor. 



> ferrous metal raceways and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


----------



## Helmut

Funny thing is, he hasn't figured it out yet.

Bring up two dissimilar metals in the 1/4 hole, and I bet his head will explode.


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> nope
> 
> if lightning had a better path to earth more of the current would have taken it(the better path)
> 
> thats electricity 101


I think where electricity is 'choked' is where the problem is.
That's electricity 001

Unless you think air is better than a bonded box ??


----------



## Wiresmith

Dennis Alwon said:


> Does it say it must be bonded at each end of the enclosure? No-- from your quote HD. It says the raceway shall be bonded at each end. The enclosure is bonded when I land my grounding electrode conductor.


yes it does

250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal *raceways* *and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure* to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically *parallel path*.


the raceway would be bonded if you only bonded it on one end


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> yes it does
> 
> 250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways *and enclosures shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or enclosure* to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically parallel path.


You could post that article another 40 times, and each time we will refute it.

"ferrous metal raceways and enclosures *for* grounding electrode conductors"

:vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

No it says shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or the enclosure.

How do you bond at each end of an enclosure? This is one continuous piece of metal so there is no ends... Sorry but you are reading this wrong.

Supposed I sleeve the grounding electrode conductor in pvc. How do I bond both ends of the enclosure? I'd love to know the answer

I have said my piece so IMO, if you want to use the kenny clamp then by all means go ahead. I will continue with using the 1/4" hole.


----------



## Wiresmith

Dennis Alwon said:


> No it says shall be bonded at each end of the raceway or the enclosure.
> 
> How do you bond at each end of an enclosure? This is one continuous piece of metal so there is no ends... Sorry but you are reading this wrong.
> 
> Supposed I sleeve the grounding electrode conductor in pvc. How do I bond both ends of the enclosure? I'd love to know the answer
> 
> I have said my piece so IMO, if you want to use the kenny clamp then by all means go ahead. I will continue with using the 1/4" hole.


250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures *shall be bonded at each end of the* raceway or *enclosure* to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically *parallel path*.



by bonding it where it leaves ferrous surrounding material, to create a parallel path


why do you think you have to bond both ends of the pipe?


the "end" the code is referring to is where the GEC leaves the enclosure(the end of the enclosure)

it says each end because the GEC may pass through some enclosures(trough), this does not exempt enclosures it terminates in.


----------



## HackWork

This thread is now about my excellent work.











I think the GEC is going up into the trough, who knows.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

hd13 said:


> 250.64(E)(1) ferrous metal raceways and enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. ferrous metal raceways and enclosures *shall be bonded at each end of the* raceway or *enclosure* to the grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to create an electrically *parallel path*.
> 
> 
> 
> by bonding it where it leaves ferrous surrounding material, to create a parallel path
> 
> 
> why do you think you have to bond both ends of the pipe?
> 
> 
> the "end" the code is referring to is where the GEC leaves the enclosure(the end of the enclosure)


Okay so tell me how to bond both ends of the enclosure. I totally understand about the pipe but the way you are reading it means you must bond both ends of the enclosure. Please tell me how????


----------



## Wiresmith

Dennis Alwon said:


> Okay so tell me how to bond both ends of the enclosure. I totally understand about the pipe but the way you are reading it means you must bond both ends of the enclosure. Please tell me how????


this is inclusive language not exclusive

this is worded this way to include enclosures that the GEC passes trhough (like a trough in many instances)
this wording does not exclude where there is only one end to the enclosure when it comes to the GEC

if the GEC ends in the enclosure, then you must also bond it where the ferrous enclosures ends as it relates to the GEC(where it leaves surrounding ferrous material, to prevent a choke)
you would bond it where you normally would and then also one more time where it(GEC)(sorry if me talking about the neutral screwed things up) leaves the surrounding ferrous material

creating a parallel path, so current can flow on the enclosure and the GEC in the enclosure and then connect back up where the GEC leaves and then all the current continue on the GEC outside of the enclosure


----------



## Wiresmith

post 905

if i'm wrong, HackWork gets to shoot me in a knee


----------



## eddy current

hd13 said:


> this is inclusive language not exclusive
> 
> this is worded this way to include enclosures that the GEC passes trhough (like a trough in many instances)
> this wording does not exclude where there is only one end to the enclosure when it comes to the GEC
> 
> if the GEC ends in the enclosure, then you must also bond it where the ferrous enclosures ends as it relates to the GEC(where it leaves surrounding ferrous material, to prevent a choke)
> you would bond it where you normally would and then also one more time where it(GEC)(sorry if me talking about the neutral screwed things up) leaves the surrounding ferrous material
> 
> creating a parallel path, so current can flow on the enclosure and the GEC in the enclosure and then connect back up where the GEC leaves and then all the current continue on the GEC outside of the enclosure


It doesn’t say that. Why do you keep adding things to the situation?


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> post 905
> 
> if i'm wrong, HackWork gets to shoot me in a knee


We all know that you have been proven wrong, but will not admit it.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> This thread is now about my excellent work.
> 
> 
> View attachment 119938
> 
> 
> 
> I think the GEC is going up into the trough, who knows.


Did you change those out live? :notworthy:


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Did you change those out live? :notworthy:


Yeah, those old meter pans are super hard to open even with the key.

They are easy to open when you are willing to drill them :vs_laugh:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Yeah, those old meter pans are super hard to open even with the key.
> 
> They are easy to open when you are willing to drill them :vs_laugh:


We don't have many of those left. In fact, I haven't seen any in years. Do you still have a lot of indoor metering?


----------



## HackWork

Yup, mostly in the lower income areas where houses are close together. And considering the fact that most of these people don't want to upgrade the services, it seems like it's going to stay like that. Our Poco now allows us to instal new services with the meters inside because they can read the smart meters remotely and they were having issues because there was no place to put the new meters on the outside of some houses.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Yup, mostly in the lower income areas where houses are close together. And considering the fact that most of these people don't want to upgrade the services, it seems like it's going to stay like that. Our Poco now allows us to instal new services with the meters inside because they can read the smart meters remotely and they were having issues because there was no place to put the new meters on the outside of some houses.


Interesting, our poco requires them to be outside if you do an upgrade, no exceptions, even with an underground feed. So you often see a 2, 3 or 4 gang meter bank on the side of the house with no visible conduit or wiring because it's all fed from the inside, line and load.


----------



## matt1124

Today I stopped at a gas station where a new bus stop had been installed. The electrical was new, and had just recently passed inspection. Emt compression fitting on the meter can holding emt with GEC inside, no fitting whatsoever where it came out at the rod.

If that bus stop gets hit by lightning, since it’s all metal, it will create an EMP so strong that we may not survive.


----------



## chicken steve

Ok, lets use a service rated troffer for an enclosure example

4' long

We enter a GEC on one end, there is no 1/4" hole....or are there sparks here that will make one?

It travels approximately 2' to a troffer center Gbar

How do we meet the requirements of 250.8 ?

How is it '_bonded_' on entry to create a '_parallel path_*' ?
~CS~


_*'17 change in 250.64_


----------



## B-Nabs

Steve. A troffer is a lay-in T-bar light fixture. You are talking about a trough. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve

My bad Nabs....a trough, onna deeZz>>>










~CS~


----------



## B-Nabs

Exactly. In my neck of the woods we call them "gutters".

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve

I found Lighters widget>







~CS~


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Ok, lets use a service rated troffer for an enclosure example
> 
> 4' long
> 
> We enter a GEC on one end, there is no 1/4" hole....or are there sparks here that will make one?
> 
> It travels approximately 2' to a troffer center Gbar
> 
> How do we meet the requirements of 250.8 ?
> 
> How is it '_bonded_' on entry to create a '_parallel path_*' ?
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> _*'17 change in 250.64_


You bond both ends as per code. As it enters, and when it leaves. Good example of an enclosure for the GEC.

Now on the service enclosure where the GEC starts, the GEC does not go THROUGH. That code does not apply there.


----------



## chicken steve

Ok Ed, 


let's try another example then. 

I can remember running a bare 3/0CU _(multiple installs)_ into something this size>>>










This would be service rated gear, direct from the serving Xformer

The service entrance conductors are all CT'd 

The 3/0 GEC 'enters' thru it's steel shell, and lands on an MBJ (_up to 12' last time_) long

It does not go THROUGH

Can i just through it through any hole on entry?

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Ok Ed,
> 
> 
> let's try another example then.
> 
> I can remember running a bare 3/0CU _(multiple installs)_ into something this size>>>
> 
> [IM]http://www.elmor.com.pl/userfiles/large/wegaWrzosowa.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> This would be service rated gear, direct from the serving Xformer
> 
> The service entrance conductors are all CT'd
> 
> The 3/0 GEC 'enters' thru it's steel shell, and lands on an MBJ (_up to 12' last time_) long
> 
> It does not go THROUGH
> 
> Can i just through it through any hole on entry?
> 
> ~CS~


You don't "terminate" it on entry, or bond it. There is no code requirement to do so. 

ETA: You edited the part where you asked where you would terminate it on entry to now say:



> Can i just through it through any hole on entry?


You simply bring it into the gear via one of the many optional methods. That gear is clearly NOT an enclosure _for_ a GEC, so 250.64(E) does not apply.

You can keep throwing out these _hail marys_, and we can keep shooting them down. Your conviction to sell unnecessary products for the manufacturers isn't getting you anywhere.


----------



## MXer774

Topic of discussion is a residential service, not switchgear. Commercial settings will abide by the grounding & bonding specs. Steve, you know this.


----------



## sbrn33

hd13 said:


> post 905
> 
> if i'm wrong, HackWork gets to shoot me in a knee


Better get your knee brace.


----------



## eddy current

Omg!!!!!


----------



## sbrn33

eddy current said:


> Omg!!!!!


Is that like a 1 1/4 set screw pvc lb?


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> Is that like a 1 1/4 set screw pvc lb?


I believe that is one of those romex connectors that can be installed from either the inside or outside.

http://www.rack-a-tiers.com/product/65/Tom-2-Way-Connectors-12

Nevermind, you were talking about the LB. That screw should be for the cover.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/1-1-4-in-Type-LB-Non-Metallic-Conduit-Body-Case-of-6-E986GR/202205909


----------



## sbrn33

yea I believe you are right. Just looked like a ss at first.


----------



## lighterup

I just came from one of my new construction jobs.

Inspector passed my 200 amp service , but when
he made no comment about my use of the Bridgeport
connector that GEC passes through , which I had
brought into the bottom of a surface mounted 240v/
200 amp MB panel , I brought up the whole issue
of preventing choking etc..if they are requiring a product
such as this...

:no:He's not aware of this as a code requirement & in
his words , "think it's more BS".


----------



## MXer774

To hell with all this choking crap. 
I'm gonna choke something tonight...............:blink:


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I just came from one of my new construction jobs.
> 
> Inspector passed my 200 amp service , but when
> he made no comment about my use of the Bridgeport
> connector that GEC passes through , which I had
> brought into the bottom of a surface mounted 240v/
> 200 amp MB panel , I brought up the whole issue
> of preventing choking etc..if they are requiring a product
> such as this...
> 
> :no:He's not aware of this as a code requirement & in
> his words , "think it's more BS".


Yup, BS to sell products.

Steve, how much is Kenny paying you? Be honest.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> Yup, BS to sell products.
> 
> Steve, how much is Kenny paying you? Be honest.


Oh methinks we can do _better _than Kenny Hax. 

In fact i've been working on an idea that'd sell like hotcakes

_you want in_? i'm talking ground floor opportunity 

Yodeling GEC connectors :clap:

_Yup....._ &&&&

Any time they feel _choked _they'll yodel notification 

like this>





:vs_cool:
~C:vs_music::vs_music::vs_music:S~


----------



## manchestersparky

MXer774 said:


> I'm gonna choke something tonight...............:blink:


Careful you'll go blind ......


----------



## Arrow3030

manchestersparky said:


> MXer774 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna choke something tonight...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful you'll go blind ......
Click to expand...

You'll shoot your eye out


----------



## HackWork

Steven, I'll take that apology now. Thanks.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

The purpose of the bond is to prevent a choke... We all get that but the meter base is bonded. The only reason you bond a conduit is because of the connection to the enclosure with a standard connector. They want a better bond than that, IMO...


----------



## ElectricalArtist

Guys I love how A thread I started blew up but out here in the real world people are getting rich off of cryptocurrency so if I were you guys do a little investment on that with research you guys have way too much time on your hands


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist said:


> Guys I love how A thread I started blew up but out here in the real world people are getting rich off of cryptocurrency so if I were you guys do a little investment on that with research you guys have way too much time on your hands


Before criticizing others you should learn what sentences are.


----------



## ElectricalArtist

Your going to have to talk to OK Google about that


----------



## HackWork

ElectricalArtist said:


> Your going to have to talk to OK Google about that


*you're


----------



## emtnut

ElectricalArtist said:


> Guys I love how A thread I started blew up but out here in the real world people are getting rich off of cryptocurrency so if I were you guys do a little investment on that with research you guys have way too much time on your hands


I'm retired, and doing quite well.
I spend time with my family, friends, and my friends here at ET.

You'll get here some day 

PS, when you don't use any punctuation, things like this happen ....:laughing:


----------



## ElectricalArtist

I thank you guys for your concern but I am always on time


----------



## HackWork

I think this choo-choo rain out of steam. 

Steve ran off to Mike Holt's :sad:


----------



## bostonPedro

I have never just ran a GEC through a "hole" or knockout and have never seen anyone who has either so this is fascinating to me. 
First off people need to stop saying panel there is no such thing. PANEL BOARDS are located in cabinets. 
A cabinet as defined by the code is an enclosure that is designed for either surface mounting or flush mounting and is provided with a frame,mat or trim in which a swinging door or doors are or can be held 
So that brings us to Article 312 Cabinets Cutout Boxes and Meter Socket Enclosures 
Article 312.5
Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312(A) through (C).
Bringing in a bare GEC conductor or insulated GEC conductor through a hole in the cabinet meets none of the requirements and exceptions as far as I can tell so its illegal


----------



## bostonPedro

This thread is hilarious


----------



## macmikeman

I think I'm all done. Too many tards. It gets old.


----------



## macmikeman

bostonPedro said:


> This thread is hilarious


And you as well.


----------



## macmikeman

Hey you! Look over there in the corner. What do you see? I see an electrical panel. No you don't, you are looking at an enclosure. It holds a panel. Yea, regardless of tens of tens of thousands call it, we numbnuts, we be sticking with what the fourteen dipshort old men in Manhattan sitting on Code panels who are 120years behind the times with their enclosure argument that grew out of something nobody has any longer which are homemade enclosures for electrical overcorrect devices, in their cases fuses. Throw some coal in the locomotive and lets head on down to watch em building the Brooklyn Bridge..........


----------



## macmikeman

Best part of all this is not one of these genius guys can prove any such thing as choke effect if no F'n Kenny clamp is installed. Not a single one. Just all trying to impress us with their huge ultimate grand database of NEC they be carrying round in their great expanse of a skull. Why Chicken steve's must be 14 feet across with all his great knowledge , and the three other idiots who vote for Kenny clamps all are right behind in expansive skull size as well. 


Just pathetic.


----------



## bostonPedro

macmikeman said:


> Best part of all this is not one of these genius guys can prove any such thing as choke effect if no F'n Kenny clamp is installed. Not a single one. Just all trying to impress us with their huge ultimate grand database of NEC they be carrying round in their great expanse of a skull. Why Chicken steve's must be 14 feet across with all his great knowledge , and the three other idiots who vote for Kenny clamps all are right behind in expansive skull size as well.
> 
> 
> Just pathetic.


No idea what the hell you are talking about but choking as they were talking is not correct. Choking at least to me is a barrier to electromagnetism running freely. Kenny clamps? Never used one.....in fact never saw one. Looks like it belongs on a water line to a fridge


----------



## bostonPedro

macmikeman said:


> Hey you! Look over there in the corner. What do you see? I see an electrical panel. No you don't, you are looking at an enclosure. It holds a panel. Yea, regardless of tens of tens of thousands call it, we numbnuts, we be sticking with what the fourteen dipshort old men in Manhattan sitting on Code panels who are 120years behind the times with their enclosure argument that grew out of something nobody has any longer which are homemade enclosures for electrical overcorrect devices, in their cases fuses. Throw some coal in the locomotive and lets head on down to watch em building the Brooklyn Bridge..........


What we call it and what article it falls under are 2 different things. It would be nice if we could just say panel and go to an article but we cant so people forget that its as far as the code is concerned its a panel board in a cabinet


----------



## chicken steve

bostonPedro said:


> What we call it and what article it falls under are 2 different things. It would be nice if we could just say panel and go to an article but we cant so people forget that its as far as the code is concerned its a panel board in a cabinet


Your 312.5 reference would include _anything_ in 110.28 , with regards to 250.8's _requirements _when introducing a GEC

And thanks for using a _code_ book Pedro

very few have followed suit here....

~CS~


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> I think I'm all done. Too many tards. It gets old.


Well, there are actually only 3 of them, but I see your point since they are just SOOOO reta*ded that they make it seem like there are far more of them.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> *And thanks for using a code book Pedro
> 
> very few have followed suit here....*
> 
> ~CS~


A lie again.

Everyone has posted code to refute what you say.

I mean, you are literally lying about something that is proven wrong on this very page, and all the other dozens of pages that you had your ass handed to you on.

Code, that's what we used to make you look foolish, code.

And in addition to that, we ALSO used the manufacturer's listing in which their engineering team specifically confirmed to us that their product is listed for use with the GEC exiting the small hole that they purposely cut into the panel/meter for the GEC to exit thru. As usual, you were too chickensh1t to even respond or acknowledge ANY of the information that the *MANUFACTURER* provided.


----------



## brian john

bostonPedro said:


> No idea what the hell you are talking about but choking as they were talking is not correct. Choking at least to me is a barrier to electromagnetism running freely. Kenny clamps? Never used one.....in fact never saw one. Looks like it belongs on a water line to a fridge


What do you use for a bare GEC entering a panel?

When I did residential I either utilized the 1/4" hole provided or a Romex (NM) connector for the GEC and at that time both passed. I would bet money if the manufactures wanted to they could get an NM connector approved but why would they when there is more money in a specialty connector.

I believe some NOT ALL of the pro specialty connector believe this is necessary because they feel it shows how smart they are they know and understand electricity the NEC better than the droids supporting the no connector point of view. All of us have seen this better than you POV many times from the same ass.


----------



## HackWork

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this before, but Mike Holt himself said this:



> The NEC does not require a connector on the GEC when it leaves an enclosure. Sometimes in our graphics we use a Kenny Connector and other times we just run the GEC through the enclosure without a connector.
> 
> Our office staff contacted Square D and UL and the response is that the 1/4' knock out in equipment is specifically for the use of the grounding electrode conductor without a connector.
> 
> My office will be making a proposal for the 2011 NEC to clarify this issue.


Subsequently, the CMP did not accept the proposal because they thought it was clear enough.

Today, it is still very clear to *everyone* except for 3 people.


----------



## eddy current

bostonPedro said:


> I have never just ran a GEC through a "hole" or knockout and have never seen anyone who has either so this is fascinating to me.
> First off people need to stop saying panel there is no such thing. PANEL BOARDS are located in cabinets.
> A cabinet as defined by the code is an enclosure that is designed for either surface mounting or flush mounting and is provided with a frame,mat or trim in which a swinging door or doors are or can be held
> So that brings us to Article 312 Cabinets Cutout Boxes and Meter Socket Enclosures
> Article 312.5
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312(A) through (C).
> Bringing in a bare GEC conductor or insulated GEC conductor through a hole in the cabinet meets none of the requirements and exceptions as far as I can tell so its illegal


1st- I would assume the code you posted is to protect INSULATED conductors from abrasion, not a bare, #6 GEC. 

2nd- What type of connector do you use and is it rated for bare #6awg wire?


----------



## lighterup

https://youtu.be/jwB8ph7VAXw?t=11


----------



## eddy current

This thread will surpass the 1000 post mark and will continually be brought back forever, unless the NEC and CEC address it specifically and simplify the wording for the guys who misinterpret it.


----------



## HackWork

eddy current said:


> This thread will surpass the 1000 post mark and will continually be brought back forever, unless the NEC and CEC address it specifically and simplify the wording for the guys who misinterpret it.


Something that I have maintained since the beginning is that there are only a few people who feel that way. If you search you will see discussions about this over the last 15+ years in which everyone agrees. There will often be a few hold-outs, but in the end they will concede that they were misinterpreting it.

This thread has only gone this far because of chicken steve's inability to act like a normal person and my inability to let him post BS.

You will find way more people who say completely wrong things that are very clearly spelled out in the NEC, such as "You need to put a pullbox every 100' of a pipe run" or "You're not allowed to splice in a panel". There's a lot more people who believe those incorrect things than there are who think the GEC needs to be bonded as it enters a panel/meter.


----------



## brian john

HackWork said:


> You will find way more people who say completely wrong things that are very clearly spelled out in the NEC, such as "You need to put a pullbox every 100' of a pipe run" or "You're not allowed to splice in a panel". There are a lot more people who believe those incorrect things than there are who think the GEC needs to be bonded as it enters a panel/meter.


Black, Red, Blue, - Brown Yellow, Orange, Ground Up, VD and others I have forgotten.


----------



## eddy current

brian john said:


> Black, Red, Blue, - Brown Yellow, Orange, Ground Up, VD and others I have forgotten.


You mean Red, Black, Blue. Lol


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> A lie again.


He can pretty much lie with impunity.


----------



## chicken steve

HackWork said:


> I'm surprised that I haven't seen this before, but Mike Holt himself said this:
> 
> 
> Subsequently, the CMP did not accept the proposal because they thought it was clear enough.
> 
> Today, it is still very clear to *everyone* except for 3 people.


You'll find that '11 change in 250.8 Hax

Of course, it won't be clear enough, at least to you!

~CS~


----------



## macmikeman

brian john said:


> Black, Red, Blue, - Brown Yellow, Orange, Ground Up, VD and others I have forgotten.


Ground up= Joe Todesco. Another classic case.


----------



## chicken steve

250.8(a)(8) 

*'other listed means'*

IE~ the manufacturer must *'list'* the entry for a GEC , via 110.3B

IE~meters, panels, troughs ,switchgear ,_anything a GEC enters_

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> Ground up= Joe Todesco. Another classic case.


I was on a resi remodel in Shaker Heights Ohio (August)
and this house had (2) services ..One standard 3 wire Edison
and the other was 120/208 3 phase.

Well I removed the old 3 phase equipment and installed
all new...(this was for (2) large A/C condensing units)

I used that Black, Red, Blue technique and when the POCO
hooked back up , I still had reverse polarity on 2 legs:vs_mad:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

chicken steve said:


> You'll find that '11 change in 250.8 Hax
> 
> Of course, it won't be clear enough, at least to you!
> 
> ~CS~


That is the section the kenny clamp company is using and IMO, it is not correct.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> You'll find that '11 change in 250.8 Hax
> 
> Of course, it won't be clear enough, at least to you!
> 
> ~CS~


 Post the change for us Steve.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> 250.8(a)(8)
> 
> *'other listed means'*
> 
> IE~ the manufacturer must *'list'* the entry for a GEC , via 110.3B
> 
> IE~meters, panels, troughs ,switchgear ,_anything a GEC enters_
> 
> ~CS~


 As I have explained to you multiple times, we already found that the manufacturers do list their product for use with the GEC entering through the small hole.

Why do you only reply to my posts when you think you might be able to refute them (with nonsense), yet you ignore every single one of my posts that completely obliterates your side of the argument with fact, code, and the manufacturers own words?


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> 250.8(a)(8)
> 
> *'other listed means'*
> 
> IE~ the manufacturer must *'list'* the entry for a GEC , via 110.3B
> 
> IE~meters, panels, troughs ,switchgear ,_anything a GEC enters_
> 
> ~CS~


You must have missed this. I'll repost it for your viewing pleasure.




Milbank_Marissa said:


> From the engineering department: "We have corner notches in the bottoms to drain water. The 1/4" KO is for the grounding wire."


Milbank clearly states the purpose for the 1/4" hole in their products. You can ignore it all you want, but that is the reality.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> 250.8(a)(8)
> 
> *'other listed means'*
> 
> IE~ the manufacturer must *'list'* the entry for a GEC , via 110.3B
> 
> IE~meters, panels, troughs ,switchgear ,_anything a GEC enters_
> 
> ~CS~


Do you actually read posts by others? You keep posting stuff like this ^^ but it has all been addressed many times by many members.

Why do you ignore them?

You have been asked to get back to the Milbank rep countless times for instance, but ignore instead.

Why?

In doing so, you are loosing all credibility, do you not see that?

If you refuted something I said, and I ignored you and kept spewing other things, how would that look to you?

I bet you don’t respond to this post. Actually, it’s become what I expect from you now.


----------



## chicken steve

Yes I've read _everything_ Ed

No, I'm the essential info is not on the table as yet here

And neither are the manufactures reps forwarding anything other than _opinion _(I've already posted my rep, thx)

I'm looking for >>>>*'listing'* <<<<<

Milbanks 1/4" hole has to be _*'listed'*_ to enter a GEC

Siemens ,Square D, GE, Cutler, Byrant panels have to be *'listed'* to enter a GEC through any given similar hole

Lee troughs have to be *'listed' *to enter a GEC through any given hole

______switchgear has to be *'listed'* to enter a GEC through any given hole

~C:vs_cool:S~

thx


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Yes I've read _everything_ Ed
> 
> No, I'm the essential info is not on the table as yet here
> 
> And neither are the manufactures reps forwarding anything other than _opinion _(I've already posted my rep, thx)


 As Eddy stated, you are ignoring everything.

I explained to you 10 times that the rep you spoke to was a sales rep for Milbank.

I went directly to the big boys at Milbank and got their engineering team to confirm that your sales rep was wrong and that the hole is listed for the GEC to pass thru.

I then asked you 10 times to take that information back to the sales rep that you spoke to. We all know why you are ignoring that, because you know he will concede to being wrong, something you won't do.

Every manufacturer that we asked confirm that the small hole is for the GEC. You have not brought us a single manufacturer that says it's not.



> I'm looking for >>>>*'listing'* <<<<<
> 
> Milbanks 1/4" hole has to be _*'listed'*_ to enter a GEC


 We provided you with it, the small holes in Milbank meter pans are list for use with the GEC thru the small hole. 

It's clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You've tried every single method under the sun to say that the GEC can't pass thru the small hole, now you are trying to bastardize the use of the listing requirement.

Everyone sees right thru your crap.


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Yes I've read _everything_ Ed
> 
> No, I'm the essential info is not on the table as yet here
> 
> And neither are the manufactures reps forwarding anything other than _opinion _(I've already posted my rep, thx)
> 
> I'm looking for >>>>*'listing'* <<<<<
> 
> Milbanks 1/4" hole has to be _*'listed'*_ to enter a GEC
> 
> Siemens ,Square D, GE, Cutler, Byrant panels have to be *'listed'* to enter a GEC through any given similar hole
> 
> Lee troughs have to be *'listed' *to enter a GEC through any given hole
> 
> ______switchgear has to be *'listed'* to enter a GEC through any given hole
> 
> ~C:vs_cool:S~
> 
> thx


But your still refusing to contact the rep again.

What is so hard about contacting the rep again with the new info from his office?

I can do it for you if you want, give me the email.

And your credibility continues to disappear with the responses you post


----------



## Wiresmith

none of those manufacturers are listing organizations (UL), they are identified for that use by the manufacturer not listed


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> none of those manufacturers are listing organizations (UL), they are identified for that use by the manufacturer not listed


Every panel/meter is listed by a NRTL. They are listed for use as described in their documentation, which includes the part that says the 5/16" hole is for the GEC.

It's the same as how a romex connector is listed for use with 12-2 since the documentation specifies 12-2 as one of the cable types that can be used with it.

You clearly don't know how any of this works. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but you should be more willing to accept the education we are giving you instead of stamping your foot and saying you are right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## StriickeN

This thread will surely be talked about in 5+ years... o.o


----------



## Roger

chicken steve said:


> Where's Charlie Trout when he's needed?
> 
> ~CS~


He's here Steve.

From Charlie's code question of the day.



> *Wednesday, March 5, 2014*
> Question:
> Hi Charlie,
> 
> Thanks for your outstanding contribution to the industry. When doing a residential service most guys I know bury the grounding electrode conductor, extending outside the home to a ground rod, about the depth of a standard shovel spade head. Nobody can find a reference in Art.250 that clearly states the depth for a single grounding electrode conductor to be buried. Can you give a code reference for this depth? Table 300.5 col. 1 seems a bit excessive to most people. Also, some inspectors require the grounding electrode conductor be secured to the service panel enclosure, and some don't... the only listed device I'm aware of for securing the GEC to an enclosure is the "Kenny clamp"; any thoughts on this issue?
> 
> Thanks, Wayne
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A
> Answer:
> Hey Wayne,
> 
> Thanks for the nice comment and participating in the Code discussions. The answers to both of your questions are found in 250.64. Section 250.64(B) in the 2014 NEC includes a new last sentence providing clarification that the burial depths in 300.5 are not required for grounding electrode conductors (GEC). That same section has a general requirement to securely fasten an exposed GEC or its enclosure to the surface on which it is installed
> 
> *There is no specific requirement in the NEC to secure a GEC to an enclosure.* Bonding to ferrous metal raceways and enclosures is necessary as stated in 250.64(E)(1). The installation requirements of the applicable raceway must also be followed if used for physical protection by 250.64(E)(4).
> 
> It is a good practice to provide protection for GEC's where they pass through an enclosure such as by the use of a suitable fitting and bushing.


http://www.neca-neis.org/code-question-of-the-day/code-question/cqd-for-3-5-2014

Notice he doesn't mention 250.8 at all.

Roger


----------



## HackWork

I’ve got a $50 bill that says although Steve himself used Charlie Trouts name as an authority on the matter, now that we find that Charlie’s opinion is against Steve’s, Steve is now going to degrade him and ignore what he said.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I’ve got a $50 bill that says although Steve himself used Charlie Trouts name as an authority on the matter, now that we find that Charlie’s opinion is against Steve’s, Steve is now going to degrade him and ignore what he said.



I think he may actually go the other way and outright say that Charlie Trout is wrong.


----------



## bostonPedro

eddy current said:


> 1st- I would assume the code you posted is to protect INSULATED conductors from abrasion, not a bare, #6 GEC.
> 
> 2nd- What type of connector do you use and is it rated for bare #6awg wire?


1.You would be wrong. It makes no distinction 

2.You pipe it


----------



## ElectricalArtist

eddy current said:


> This thread will surpass the 1000 post mark and will continually be brought back forever, unless the NEC and CEC address it specifically and simplify the wording for the guys who misinterpret it.


 I hope so.


----------



## telsa

ElectricalArtist said:


> I hope so.


Ya think ?


----------



## chicken steve

Roger said:


> He's here Steve.
> 
> From Charlie's code question of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.neca-neis.org/code-question-of-the-day/code-question/cqd-for-3-5-2014
> 
> Notice he doesn't mention 250.8 at all.
> 
> Roger


Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

ElectricalArtist said:


> I hope so.


Methinks you _missed _your calling 

I'm imagining_ historic_ congressional filibusters.....

:vs_laugh:

~CS~


----------



## lighterup

14 to go:notworthy:sorry dennis ...I just couldn't help myself


----------



## brian john

Roger said:


> He's here Steve.
> 
> From Charlie's code question of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.neca-neis.org/code-question-of-the-day/code-question/cqd-for-3-5-2014
> 
> Notice he doesn't mention 250.8 at all.
> 
> Roger


Steve wanted Charlie's EXPERT OPINION, we have it, he has it, case closed a few post short of 1,000.


----------



## lighterup

brian john said:


> Steve wanted Charlie's EXPERT OPINION, we have it, he has it, case closed a few post short of 1,000.


Part Pooper...oops ...I did it again


----------



## trentonmakes

Who gets the $50?

Texting and Driving


----------



## brian john

trentonmakes said:


> Who gets the $50?
> 
> Texting and Driving


Roger


----------



## HackWork

Looks like we were both correct, Peter:



HackWork said:


> I’ve got a $50 bill that says although Steve himself used Charlie Trouts name as an authority on the matter, now that we find that Charlie’s opinion is against Steve’s, Steve is now going to degrade him and ignore what he said.





MTW said:


> I think he may actually go the other way and outright say that Charlie Trout is wrong.





chicken steve said:


> Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger
> 
> ~CS~


Steve, so you want Charlie's opinion, but then when someone posts it you insult him and say that he should retire simply because his opinion is not what you wanted to hear and doesn't support your lonely side of the discussion?

Can you get any more pathetic?


----------



## eddy current

bostonPedro said:


> I have never just ran a GEC through a "hole" or knockout and have never seen anyone who has either so this is fascinating to me.
> First off people need to stop saying panel there is no such thing. PANEL BOARDS are located in cabinets.
> A cabinet as defined by the code is an enclosure that is designed for either surface mounting or flush mounting and is provided with a frame,mat or trim in which a swinging door or doors are or can be held
> So that brings us to Article 312 Cabinets Cutout Boxes and Meter Socket Enclosures
> Article 312.5
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312(A) through (C).
> Bringing in a bare GEC conductor or insulated GEC conductor through a hole in the cabinet meets none of the requirements and exceptions as far as I can tell so its illegal





bostonPedro said:


> 1.You would be wrong. It makes no distinction
> 
> 2.You pipe it


I’ll be more clear. As per the codes you posted, what type of connector are we supposed to use? Again, this whole thread is about running a wire into an enclosure, not pipe. 



Try again :wink:


And explain how a bare GEC without a connector would be damaged by abrasion exactly?


----------



## eddy current

chicken steve said:


> Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger
> 
> ~CS~


This is getting pathetic.


----------



## sbrn33

I am really starting to like this Bostonpedro guy. He seems smart.
994


----------



## sbrn33

eddy current said:


> This thread will surpass the 1000 post mark and will continually be brought back forever, unless the NEC and CEC address it specifically and simplify the wording for the guys who misinterpret it.


So we should change the code because literately 2 people out of 300 cannot comprehend the wording?


----------



## HackWork

I think it would be pretty accurate to say that it’s two people out of millions.


----------



## emtnut

sbrn33 said:


> So we should change the code because literately 2 people out of 300 cannot comprehend the wording?


If Millbank and SqD loose their listing over this, I'm gonna buy shares in Kenny :notworthy:

:no:


----------



## HackWork

Steve has plenty of shares to sell you.


----------



## eddy current

999 in honour of Wayne Gretzky


----------



## sbrn33

Who wants 1,000


----------



## HackWork

You stole this from me. I will never forget this.


----------



## emtnut

Wow :blink: 

Someone should delete that post


----------



## lighterup

I'm claiming 1,500 ...seriously!:vs_mad:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

chicken steve said:


> Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger
> 
> ~CS~


He did.



> In October 2015, Charlie Trout passed away. He will be missed.


----------



## HackWork

I gotta admit, it's been a few hours and I am still just as pissed at Jackwad as I was earlier.

I don't know if there is any coming back from this.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I gotta admit, it's been a few hours and I am still just as pissed at Jackwad as I was earlier.
> 
> I don't know if there is any coming back from this.


I started working before sunrise and just back in
who is Jackwad and what happened?


----------



## trentonmakes

Wow!
Just wow

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I started working before sunrise and just back in
> who is Jackwad and what happened?


Jackwad is what we affectionately call Sabrina.

What did he do? He stole the 1,000th post from me :sad:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Jackwad is what we affectionately call Sabrina.
> 
> What did he do? He stole the 1,000th post from me :sad:


Thank you for replying. I was starting to think that
I pissed you off again:sad:


----------



## MTW

chicken steve said:


> Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger
> 
> ~CS~


Nobody cares what you have to say. Nobody.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Thank you for replying. I was starting to think that
> I pissed you off again:sad:


I don't see how you would have.

Did you call me ugly or something? Cause that would make me upset, and disappointed :crying:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I don't see how you would have.
> 
> Did you call me ugly or something? Cause that would make me upset, and disappointed :crying:


No...I was asking myself...did I piss Hackworks Off?

Let's see...maybe he's not happy with me cause I just don't
want to be involved in jumping all over CS???

Nahh..that can't be it...

Maybe him And MTW are giving me the silent treatment
cause I was getting annoyed at MTW's 
thing that he was doing...

Other than that...I'm lost...I"m a lover not a fighter:vs_cocktail:


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> Maybe him And MTW are giving me the silent treatment
> cause I was getting annoyed at MTW's
> thing that he was doing...


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> No...I was asking myself...did I piss Hackworks Off?
> 
> Let's see...maybe he's not happy with me cause I just don't
> want to be involved in jumping all over CS???
> 
> Nahh..that can't be it...
> 
> Maybe him And MTW are giving me the silent treatment
> cause I was getting annoyed at MTW's
> thing that he was doing...
> 
> Other than that...I'm lost...I"m a lover not a fighter:vs_cocktail:


I don't know what I could have done to make you think I was mad. 

When I am mad, I pound my fists like this: :vs_mad:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I don't know what I could have done to make you think I was mad.
> 
> When I am mad, I pound my fists like this: :vs_mad:


I actually catch on fire, like this: :furious:


----------



## emtnut

HackWork said:


> I gotta admit, it's been a few hours and I am still just as pissed at Jackwad as I was earlier.
> 
> I don't know if there is any coming back from this.


I think it pissed a lot of guys. It was really quiet here after that.

I did keep this screenshot thou ...


----------



## HackWork

Yeah, I noticed that I got the 1000th reply which doesn't count the original post. But not the 1000th post.

Sabrina stole that from me. I'm still deciding what to do.


----------



## eddy current

When I posted #999, I was worried someone would slip a quick post in before me making mine actually #1000.

I opened another window on my IPad and checked before posting.


----------



## emtnut

eddy current said:


> When I posted #999, I was worried someone would slip a quick post in before me making mine actually #1000.
> 
> I opened another window on my IPad and checked before posting.


That's why I liked your post !

I didn't want to take the chance that someone else posted 10 seconds before me


----------



## eddy current

Maybe SBRN33 didn’t see my post and thought he was putting up #999?


----------



## sbrn33

HackWork said:


> Yeah, I noticed that I got the 1000th reply which doesn't count the original post. But not the 1000th post.
> 
> Sabrina stole that from me. I'm still deciding what to do.


I am honestly very sorry. Really I am only sorry that it was such a ****ty post. I was in a hurry and had **** to do as I was playing song quiz on my alexa. Can I go back and edit that? I promise I will do better. 
I could post about alot of things. I could talk about how Vermont is the biggest tourist attraction in the USA or how I walked up the biggest mountain in Nebraska backwards.


----------



## brian john

sbrn33 said:


> I am honestly very sorry. Really I am only sorry that it was such a ****ty post. I was in a hurry and had **** to do as I was playing song quiz on my alexa. Can I go back and edit that? I promise I will do better.
> I could post about alot of things. I could talk about how Vermont is the biggest tourist attraction in the USA or how I walked up the biggest mountain in Nebraska backwards.


Talk about your fascination with donkeys.


----------



## HackWork

brian john said:


> Talk about your fascination with donkeys.


I always planned to take him to a donkey show. 


But not anymore.


----------



## macmikeman

They don't even have a largest mountain in Nebraska


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> They don't even have a largest mountain in Nebraska


They do have volcanoes, though.


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> They do have volcanoes, though.


Good, I'm off the hook then.....


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> Good, I'm off the hook then.....


That holysheeti'manasshole guy definitely isn't. Sunset Beach either.


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> I actually catch on fire, like this: :furious:


I was wondering if that was why your eyes kept rolling
to the back of your head...you know like this...


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> I was wondering if that was why your eyes kept rolling
> to the back of your head...you know like this...


I don't know what you're talking about. :whistling2:


----------



## RePhase277

This is the worst thread on the whole internet. A close second is the identical thread on Mike Holt.


----------



## chicken steve

_My my_...look what the cat dragged in.....:vs_laugh:~CS~


----------



## lighterup

RePhase277 said:


> This is the worst thread on the whole internet. A close second is the identical thread on Mike Holt.


How was your sabbatical?


----------



## RePhase277

lighterup said:


> How was your sabbatical?


On going. I just read 1000+ posts in this thread and seen some of the most convoluted hypocrisy ever and had to bless you all with my opinion.


----------



## HackWork

RePhase277 said:


> On going. I just read 1000+ posts in this thread and seen some of the most convoluted hypocrisy ever and had to bless you all with my opinion.


Not only do you not say hello to me, but you call me a hyppopotamus?!?!?! :sad:


----------



## RePhase277

HackWork said:


> Not only do you not say hello to me, but you call me a hyppopotamus?!?!?! :sad:


You know I ain't all mushy like that, n***a.


----------



## sbrn33

RePhase277 said:


> On going. I just read 1000+ posts in this thread and seen some of the most convoluted hypocrisy ever and had to bless you all with my opinion.


Should have came on earlier. I would have given you #1,000.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> Should have came on earlier. I would have given you #1,000.


You think this is funny, don't you?


Me too, I chuckled. But I am still mad inside.


----------



## HackWork

Ok, so I think it's clear now.

The GEC does not need to be bonded as it enters a panel or meter pan.
Also, you can bring the GEC into the small hole in either of those two pieces of equipment since they are listed for use in that fashion. 

Although Steve won't admit he is wrong, I think it's very clear that his lack of being able to find one stitch of evidence to backup his lonely side of the argument shows the truth.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Although Steve won't admit he is wrong, I think it's very clear that his lack of being able to find one stitch of evidence to backup his lonely side of the argument shows the truth.


You do have to admit that he is very good at using the code completely out of context. I have to give credit where credit is due.


----------



## eddy current

In the new 2018 CEC they changed the wording a bit for our code about running a ground in a metal conduit. Maybe the next NEC will do the same?



10-116 Installation of ground conductors

(4)*Raceways* or *sleeves* constructed of magnetic material used to enclose grounding conductors shall be connected to the ground conductor at both ends

No confusing that with enclosures. :smile:


----------



## MTW

RePhase277 said:


> You know I ain't all mushy like that, n***a.


I thought you went to B.C. to find that women you're obsessed with. Did you go and discover that she's now a crack whore?


----------



## RePhase277

MTW said:


> I thought you went to B.C. to find that women you're obsessed with. Did you go and discover that she's now a crack whore?


I never got far enough to find out. I was arrested by the RCMP at the boarder. I spent the last 3 weeks in Canadian jail eating lobster and getting pedicures.


----------



## emtnut

RePhase277 said:


> I never got far enough to find out. I was arrested by the RCMP at the boarder. I spent the last 3 weeks in Canadian jail eating lobster and getting pedicures.


If you didn't get the standard $10M buyout, I'd go back and file a formal complaint :vs_mad:


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Ok, so I think it's clear now.
> 
> The GEC does not need to be bonded as it enters a panel or meter pan.
> Also, you can bring the GEC into the small hole in either of those two pieces of equipment since they are listed for use in that fashion.
> .



nope, your wrong


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Every panel/meter is listed by a NRTL. They are listed for use as described in their documentation, which includes the part that says the 5/16" hole is for the GEC.


milbank meter bases are UL 414 listed


UL 414
Standard for Meter Sockets
1.1 These requirements cover meter sockets for use with:

a) Watthour and similar meters;

b) Test switches;

c) Metering transformer cabinets; and

d) Metering transformer cabinet interiors





the listing does not cover what the manufacturer describes, the listing is only for the test done for UL 414


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> nope, your wrong


*you're.

And please be accurate, say "_Everyone but Steve and I are wrong_". Thanks.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> milbank meter bases are UL 414 listed
> 
> 
> UL 414
> Standard for Meter Sockets
> 1.1 These requirements cover meter sockets for use with:
> 
> a) Watthour and similar meters;
> 
> b) Test switches;
> 
> c) Metering transformer cabinets; and
> 
> d) Metering transformer cabinet interiors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the listing does not cover what the manufacturer describes, the listing is only for the test done for UL 414


Incorrect, you're wrong. 

110.3(B) is very clear and once again you and Steve are the only people questioning it.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Incorrect, you're wrong.
> 
> 110.3(B) is very clear and once again you and Steve are the only people questioning it.


110.3(B) listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

the manufactures do not say you must use the 1/4" hole they just say it is pre stamped for that use, by your logic you would be in violation because you do not use the hole in the meter bases, do you?


----------



## Wiresmith

under a lightning surge, almost no current will be on the inside of the enclosure, it will be outside it. you need to bond the GEC where it leaves its ferrous surrounding material so the GEC will be used during a lightning strike instead of using something not desired to be used


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> 110.3(B) listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.
> 
> the manufactures do not say you must use the 1/4" hole


 No one EVER said or insinuated that you "had to" use that hole.



> they just say it is pre stamped for that use


Exactly, and that is the entire point. That the manufacturers put the hole there for you to run the GEC thru it if you choose. 

You don't even know what you are arguing. Just when I thought that you couldn't make yourself look any worse, you surprise us all!


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> under a lightning surge, almost no current will be on the inside of the enclosure, it will be outside it. you need to bond the GEC where it leaves its ferrous surrounding material so the GEC will be used during a lightning strike instead of using something not desired to be used


This is all your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is not backed by fact or code. Judging by all the other opinions you posted in this thread, someone would have to be pretty ignorant to give your opinion any merit.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> No one EVER said or insinuated that you "had to" use that hole.


what did you mean by this?
post 1047



HackWork said:


> Incorrect, you're wrong.
> 
> 110.3(B) is very clear and once again you and Steve are the only people questioning it.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> what did you mean by this?
> post 1047


I mean that 110.3(B) is very clear and once again you and Steve are the only people questioning it.


----------



## Signal1

The next person that says "ferrous" is a C**NT


----------



## Wiresmith

skin effect



National Lightning Safety Institute

excerpt
"Electrically speaking, at lightning's higher frequencies, currents are carried mostly on the outside of conducting objects. A thick copper wire or a hollow-wall metal pipe will carry most of the lightning on outer surfaces. This phenomenon is called "skin effect." The same holds true for lightning when it strikes metal vehicles: the outer surface carries most of the electricity. The persons inside this steel box can be likened to protected by a partial Faraday cage." http://lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/effect.html


----------



## Wiresmith

Signal1 said:


> The next person that says "ferrous" is a C**NT


you have to when people on here are asking how to electrically bond a pvc conduit

and they also think electricity cares whether you call something an enclosure or a raceway


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> I mean that 110.3(B) is very clear and once again you and Steve are the only people questioning it.


i'm not questioning it, it is very clear

you are wrong


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> skin effect
> 
> 
> 
> National Lightning Safety Institute
> 
> excerpt
> "Electrically speaking, at lightning's higher frequencies, currents are carried mostly on the outside of conducting objects. A thick copper wire or a hollow-wall metal pipe will carry most of the lightning on outer surfaces. This phenomenon is called "skin effect." The same holds true for lightning when it strikes metal vehicles: the outer surface carries most of the electricity. The persons inside this steel box can be likened to protected by a partial Faraday cage."http://lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/effect.html


Once again, no one cares what you have to say. 

You can post all the data in the world, it won't change the *fact* that the NEC does not require the GEC to be bonded when it enters a panel or meter. Nor does it change the fact that manufacturers list their equipment for use with the GEC optionally entering the small hole.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> i'm not questioning it, it is very clear
> 
> you are wrong


Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Do you notice how every time I prove you wrong, I do so by posting evidence and articulating the exact reason why you are wrong? Something that you simply haven't (and can't) do.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Once again, no one cares what you have to say.
> 
> Nor does it change the fact that manufacturers list their equipment for use with the GEC optionally entering the small hole.




manufacturers are not listing agencies


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Sure, keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Do you notice how every time I prove you wrong, I do so by posting evidence and articulating the exact reason why you are wrong? Something that you simply haven't (and can't) do.


what evidence?

-one picture, that does not cover the gec exiting a meter base or cabinet
-the word for, which includes meter bases and cabinets the gec is in.
-some other guys that agree with you that are trying to figure out how to electrically bond pvc


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> manufacturers are not listing agencies


No one said, nor insinuated, that they are.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> what evidence?
> 
> -one picture, that does not cover the gec exiting a meter base or cabinet
> -the word for
> -some other guys that agree with you that are trying to figure out how to electrically bond pvc


Go back and read the thread, educate yourself.

I've gone FAR beyond where a normal person would to help you understand this very simple matter. Your games of ignoring everything and asking for it to be posted 15-20 times isn't going to get you anywhere.


----------



## Wiresmith

hd13 said:


> manufacturers are not listing agencies





HackWork said:


> No one said, nor insinuated, that they are.


you just said




HackWork said:


> manufacturers list their equipment for use with the GEC optionally entering the small hole.


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> you just said


No, I did not say that manufacturers are a listing agency.

Your ignorance of this entire system is astounding.

Manufacturers have their products listed by a NRTL. That product is listed for use in a certain way.

Milbank listed their product for use according to all it's instructions, manuals, cut sheets, etc, which include using the small hole for the GEC. 

You're welcome.


----------



## HackWork

Since you are sure to not understand that, let me give you an example. 

If you use a romex staple that is listed, you must use it according to it's listing. That means you can only put 1 cable under each staple of the box says so, etc. That is how it is listed, and 110.3(B) says you must following the listing. The same applies to a meter pan, which is listed for use with the GEC going thru the small hole.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Go back and read the thread, educate yourself.
> 
> I've gone FAR beyond where a normal person would to help you understand this very simple matter. Your games of ignoring everything and asking for it to be posted 15-20 times isn't going to get you anywhere.


you have given no proof.


you have only given half baked, lazy interpretations of things, and a bunch of other people that think " it has always been done that way, its good".

and in one thread they will talk about how ignorant inspectors are, but in this thread use the fact that they pass inspections with this as proof it is code compliant. that is egregious deception and laziness.


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Since you are sure to not understand that, let me give you an example.
> 
> If you use a romex staple that is listed, you must use it according to it's listing. That means you can only put 1 cable under each staple of the box says so, etc. That is how it is listed, and 110.3(B) says you must following the listing. The same applies to a meter pan, which is listed for use with the GEC going thru the small hole.


your mixing up listing and labelling

listing-UL standard

labeling- package labelling


----------



## Wiresmith

HackWork said:


> Milbank listed their product for use according to all it's instructions, manuals, cut sheets, etc, which include using the small hole for the GEC.
> 
> You're welcome.


milbank is not a listing agency

there meter bases are listed for UL 414 which does not include running a gec through a 1/4" hole


----------



## HackWork

hd13 said:


> you have given no proof.


 Lie.



> you have only given half baked, lazy interpretations of things, and a bunch of other people that think " it has always been done that way, its good".


 Incorrect.



> and in one thread they will talk about how ignorant inspectors are, but in this thread use the fact that they pass inspections with this as proof it is code compliant. that is egregious deception and laziness.


Another lie. *No one* is justifying running the GEC thru the small hole because inspectors allow it. You literally made that up yourself. People might have mentioned that their inspector allows it, but they better allow it since it is code compliant. 

Everyone agrees that there is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it enters the panel. You can't cite any code to refute that. 

It's really that simple, and since you have reverted to openly and blatantly lying here, I will not respond to you any further.


----------



## Wiresmith

UL 414
Standard for Meter Sockets
Purchase UL 414
DETAILS
Edition Number:	9	SCC Approved:	--
Edition Date:	2016-01-05	DOD Approved:	1987-11-20
Price Code:	D	ANSI Approved:	2016-01-05
Type:	ulstd
SCOPE
1 Scope
1.1 These requirements cover meter sockets for use with:

a) Watthour and similar meters;

b) Test switches;

c) Metering transformer cabinets; and

d) Metering transformer cabinet interiors

for installation in accordance with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70.

1.2 Meter sockets are marked with a continuous duty ampere rating and may in addition have a maximum use (intermittent) ampere rating of 125 percent or less of the continuous duty ampere rating.

1.3 A meter socket, as covered by these requirements, is an assembly of wiring terminals and jaw type contacts for one or more plug-in watthour meters in an enclosure having provisions for securing the meter to the socket.

1.4 Some meter sockets may be housed in a metal pedestal enclosure intended for mounting on a concrete slab or in a metal post enclosure intended to be sunk in the ground with or without concrete poured around the post at ground level and either self-supported or intended for separate support. Such posts or pedestals are not intended to serve as the sole support of masts for overhead wiring.

1.5 Some meter sockets may be intended for mounting on a mounting post or pedestal for distribution equipment.

1.6 As covered by these requirements, a meter socket does not include:

a) A meter,

b) An overcurrent device,

c) An instrument transformer,

d) An arcing or switching part, or

e) A similar component.

A meter socket does not have provision for installation of instrument transformers within the meter socket enclosure.

1.7 These requirements cover meter sockets rated:

a) 300 volts alternating current or less, or 600 volts alternating current and

b) 400 amperes maximum per meter position.

1.8 These requirements cover metering transformer cabinets and metering transformer cabinet interiors rated maximum 6000 amperes at maximum 600 volts.

1.9 As covered by these requirements, a metering transformer cabinet or metering transformer cabinet interior does not include the current transformers.


----------



## HackWork

Steven, it has now been a month since you said that you contacted all the manufacturers asking about the little hole that they put in their panels and meter pans.

We have asked 2 manufacturers and they both confirmed that you are incorrect.

You only told us about 1 manufacturer that you contacted, but you spoke with a sales rep who was proven to give you false information.

Can you please tell us what all those manufacturers that you contracted said? And also what the sales rep that gave you incorrect information said when you showed him what his employer and bosses said?

Thanks!


----------



## emtnut

hd13 said:


> UL 414
> Standard for Meter Sockets
> Purchase UL 414
> DETAILS
> Edition Number: 9 SCC Approved: --
> Edition Date: 2016-01-05 DOD Approved: 1987-11-20
> Price Code: D ANSI Approved: 2016-01-05
> Type: ulstd
> SCOPE
> 1 Scope
> 1.1 These requirements cover meter sockets for use with:
> 
> a) Watthour and similar meters;
> 
> b) Test switches;
> 
> c) Metering transformer cabinets; and
> 
> d) Metering transformer cabinet interiors
> 
> for installation in accordance with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70.
> 
> 1.2 Meter sockets are marked with a continuous duty ampere rating and may in addition have a maximum use (intermittent) ampere rating of 125 percent or less of the continuous duty ampere rating.
> 
> 1.3 A meter socket, as covered by these requirements, is an assembly of wiring terminals and jaw type contacts for one or more plug-in watthour meters in an enclosure having provisions for securing the meter to the socket.
> 
> 1.4 Some meter sockets may be housed in a metal pedestal enclosure intended for mounting on a concrete slab or in a metal post enclosure intended to be sunk in the ground with or without concrete poured around the post at ground level and either self-supported or intended for separate support. Such posts or pedestals are not intended to serve as the sole support of masts for overhead wiring.
> 
> 1.5 Some meter sockets may be intended for mounting on a mounting post or pedestal for distribution equipment.
> 
> 1.6 As covered by these requirements, a meter socket does not include:
> 
> a) A meter,
> 
> b) An overcurrent device,
> 
> c) An instrument transformer,
> 
> d) An arcing or switching part, or
> 
> e) A similar component.
> 
> A meter socket does not have provision for installation of instrument transformers within the meter socket enclosure.
> 
> 1.7 These requirements cover meter sockets rated:
> 
> a) 300 volts alternating current or less, or 600 volts alternating current and
> 
> b) 400 amperes maximum per meter position.
> 
> 1.8 These requirements cover metering transformer cabinets and metering transformer cabinet interiors rated maximum 6000 amperes at maximum 600 volts.
> 
> 1.9 As covered by these requirements, a metering transformer cabinet or metering transformer cabinet interior does not include the current transformers.


This is a game changer 
I don't have a listed way of getting my conductors in there either


----------



## WPNortheast

Did arlington gc50 get an honorable mention yet?


----------



## lighterup

:vs_mad:







Interpretation....

WTF! You guys are still talking about this?!


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> :vs_mad:
> 
> https://youtu.be/WP_DdfaU1sQ
> 
> 
> Interpretation....
> 
> WTF! You guys are still talking about this?!


Why not stop clicking on the thread if it bothers you?


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Steven, it has now been a month since you said that you contacted all the manufacturers asking about the little hole that they put in their panels and meter pans.
> 
> We have asked 2 manufacturers and they both confirmed that you are incorrect.
> 
> You only told us about 1 manufacturer that you contacted, but you spoke with a sales rep who was proven to give you false information.
> 
> Can you please tell us what all those manufacturers that you contracted said? And also what the sales rep that gave you incorrect information said when you showed him what his employer and bosses said?
> 
> Thanks!


Steve is too busy slandering Brian by calling him a racist to be truthful about anything in this thread.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Why not stop clicking on the thread if it bothers you?


I'll have to think about that...okay 

Because I like to post this s**t...that's why


----------



## lighterup

so ...we should use the 1/4" hole for a GEC...what if 
the larger feeders call for an upsized GEC that won't 
fit in the 1/4" hole?

Is it violating the UL listing to unibit that sucker to
larger diameter?


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> so ...we should use the 1/4" hole for a GEC...what if
> the larger feeders call for an upsized GEC that won't
> fit in the 1/4" hole?
> 
> Is it violating the UL listing to unibit that sucker to
> larger diameter?


There is no violation because there is no code against it. It's just that simple. That reality has been stated hundreds of times in many different ways, but that's literally all there is to it. If the NEC does not prohibit it, it's allowed. A certain failed electrician can twist and warp it any way he wants to and claim the NEC requires bonding, but that is a blatant lie.


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I'll have to think about that...okay
> 
> Because I like to post this s**t...that's why


You're a little weird. Like the kid that brings a gun to school to kill everyone. Please don't kill me, then Steve will never resolve this GEC thing.



lighterup said:


> so ...we should use the 1/4" hole for a GEC...what if
> the larger feeders call for an upsized GEC that won't
> fit in the 1/4" hole?
> 
> Is it violating the UL listing to unibit that sucker to
> larger diameter?


It's not that you _should_ use the little hole. It's just one option out of many. Use whatever option you like and works with what you have.


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> There is no violation because there is no code against it. It's just that simple. That reality has been stated hundreds of times in many different ways, but that's literally all there is to it. If the NEC does not prohibit it, it's allowed. A certain failed electrician can twist and warp it any way he wants to and claim the NEC requires bonding, but that is a blatant lie.


the question was redundant


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> the question was redundant


Did you mean rhetorical?


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> You're a little weird.  Like the kid that brings a gun to school to kill everyone. Please don't kill me, then Steve will never resolve this GEC thing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that you _should_ use the little hole. It's just one option out of many. Use whatever option you like and works with what you have.


:vs_laugh::vs_laugh:I knew a guy in the Army ...he was from Jersey too.
YOU are exactly like him:vs_laugh:I'm a little wierd?:vs_laugh:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> Did you mean rhetorical?


no...well in wierd way sort of:vs_laugh:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> You're a little weird. Like the kid that brings a gun to school to kill everyone. Please don't kill me, then Steve will never resolve this GEC thing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that you _should_ use the little hole. It's just one option out of many. Use whatever option you like and works with what you have.


But I like using the 1/4" hole!:vs_mad:


----------



## HackWork




----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> But I like using the 1/4" hole!:vs_mad:


What part of my post do you think says you shouldn't?

Medication time.

Please don't shoot me.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> What part of my post do you think says you shouldn't?
> 
> Medication time.
> 
> Please don't shoot me.


Why are you so defensive (in a really cute sort of way)?
I'm not accusing you of anything...you're right about
medication time though...errrrr...I recommend prozac
with night time (2) Aleves and a very small amount
of Plum wine...nighty night


----------



## lighterup

I gotta ask...were you in the Army in 1985 at Fort Ord California?
Are your initial J.B.?


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Why are you so defensive (in a really cute sort of way)?
> I'm not accusing you of anything...you're right about
> medication time though...errrrr...I recommend prozac
> with night time (2) Aleves and a very small amount
> of Plum wine...nighty night


It's going past weird and becoming disturbing.


----------



## MTW

As if Steve wasn't bad enough, now we have this to deal with.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> It's going past weird and becoming disturbing.


Yeah okay...I see you & your girlfriend think you have
anew chicken steve...I'm not makin no commitments about
your gun concerns


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> Yeah okay...I see you & your girlfriend think you have
> anew chicken steve...I'm not makin no commitments about
> your gun concerns


I'm assuming you've had some "liquid refreshment" tonight.


----------



## macmikeman

lighterup said:


> so ...we should use the 1/4" hole for a GEC...what if
> the larger feeders call for an upsized GEC that won't
> fit in the 1/4" hole?
> 
> Is it violating the UL listing to unibit that sucker to
> larger diameter?


You are not going to find that little bitty knockout on panels larger than 200 amps where a #4 will fit the bill every time. Thats why your question is not well thought out....... And...... it's in load centers not bolt on panels. Typically where you exceed 200 amp buss, and or 250 volts phase to phase, you are also definitely not going to be installing a load center.


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> I'm assuming you've had some "liquid refreshment" tonight.


https://youtu.be/5BjtPU4PE2I?t=16


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Yeah okay...I see you & your girlfriend think you have
> anew chicken steve...I'm not makin no commitments about
> your gun concerns


My girlfriend?


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> You are not going to find that little bitty knockout on panels larger than 200 amps where a #4 will fit the bill every time. Thats why your question is not well thought out....... And...... it's in load centers not bolt on panels. Typically where you exceed 200 amp buss, and or 250 volts phase to phase, you are also definitely not going to be installing a load center.


Fine! Go ahead ...pile on Island Boy!


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> You are not going to find that little bitty knockout on panels larger than 200 amps where a #4 will fit the bill every time. Thats why your question is not well thought out....... And...... it's in load centers not bolt on panels. Typically where you exceed 200 amp buss, and or 250 volts phase to phase, you are also definitely not going to be installing a load center.


You are speaking to someone with an even worse knowledge of code than Steve. Watch, next he will tell us how his instructor said you have to use a 4/0 GEC for a 100A service.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> You are speaking to someone with an even worse knowledge of code than Steve. Watch, next he will tell us how his instructor said you have to use a 4/0 GEC for a 100A service.


Oh now it's personal. You see...you have no sense of humor.
Why do act this way? Why aren't you working in the union? 
Why did you leave? and don't talk that smack about paying 
dues..why aren't you working with union guys?

I already know. I know you better than you think.
For the record , you wouldn't pass an inspection
and not just here..in Jersey too. That's why you & your girl friend
hate inspections..

you can't handle authority


----------



## eddy current

Sorry to interrupt you ladies, but does the NEC require a bigger GEC for a service greater than 200 amps?

We Used to have a table in the CEC for size of GEC, but recently (2012) they changed it to #6 regardless of service size. Our bond must be sized accordingly, but our ground wire to the electrode needs only to be a #6. I was told it was to match up with the NEC.


----------



## macmikeman

eddy current said:


> Sorry to interrupt you ladies, but does the NEC require a bigger GEC for a service greater than 200 amps?
> 
> We Used to have a table in the CEC for size of GEC, but recently (2012) they changed it to #6 regardless of service size. Our bond must be sized accordingly, but our ground wire to the electrode needs only to be a #6. I was told it was to match up with the NEC.


NEC requires only #6 to a ground rod, but a different grounding electrode like a water pipe requires (sometimes) larger depending on table 2brainfart. 

I'll come back in a while with the right table number, right now I am wondering around trying to remember where I live at, or what my name is. I hope one of those nice police fellas come by an take me home like they always do when I get like this..... 250.66? maybe???


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Oh now it's personal. You see...you have no sense of humor.
> Why do act this way? Why aren't you working in the union?
> Why did you leave? and don't talk that smack about paying
> dues..why aren't you working with union guys?
> 
> I already know. I know you better than you think.
> For the record , you wouldn't pass an inspection
> and not just here..in Jersey too. That's why you & your girl friend
> hate inspections..
> 
> you can't handle authority


I don't know what you are talking about. But I have to say, you doubled down on the weird thing.

I stopped working altogether due to heart failure and then other medical issues. I started a company so I could control the amount of physical labor that I have to do. I have posted that many times, long before you joined.

As far as me not being able to pass an inspection, lol. 

Can't handle authority? 

How about I give you a mulligan? Just start over and try to save face.


----------



## macmikeman

Stupid spell checker kept changing NEC to new. Ten times I had to do it over....


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> Oh now it's personal. You see...you have no sense of humor.
> Why do act this way? Why aren't you working in the union?
> Why did you leave? and don't talk that smack about paying
> dues..why aren't you working with union guys?
> 
> I already know. I know you better than you think.
> For the record , you wouldn't pass an inspection
> and not just here..in Jersey too. That's why you & your girl friend
> hate inspections..
> 
> you can't handle authority


How many :drink: have you had tonight? Be honest. It's a least a 12 pack so far.


----------



## lighterup

MTW said:


> How many :drink: have you had tonight? Be honest. It's a least a 12 pack so far.


Nope...2:vs_laugh:

now...your girlfriend is calling ..move along:vs_laugh:


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I don't know what you are talking about. But I have to say, you doubled down on the weird thing.
> 
> I stopped working altogether due to heart failure and then other medical issues. I started a company so I could control the amount of physical labor that I have to do. I have posted that many times, long before you joined.
> 
> As far as me not being able to pass an inspection, lol.
> 
> Can't handle authority?
> 
> How about I give you a mulligan? Just start over and try to save face.


for someone with aheart issue , you sure like picking fights
with people ,..oh King of ET ball busters


----------



## HackWork

So we are both the girls?

Two men in a lesbian relationship?


----------



## MTW

lighterup said:


> Nope...2:vs_laugh:
> 
> now...your girlfriend is calling ..move along:vs_laugh:


Who is my girlfriend, exactly?


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> for someone with aheart issue , you sure like picking fights
> with people ,..oh King of ET ball busters


I never pick fights. You must be too drunk to remember your earlier posts tonight.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> So we are both the girls?
> 
> Two men in a lesbian relationship?


I did not mention names , but you sure did.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I never pick fights. You must be too drunk to remember your earlier posts tonight.


yep...there's another classic cop out from you & your 
lady friend...just call someone adrunk when you don't
feel them puckerin up to your butt cheeks:vs_whistle:


----------



## HackWork

Honestly, I don't think you are that drunk. All of your posts are this stupid.


----------



## lighterup

:smile:


HackWork said:


> Honestly, I don't think you are that drunk. All of your posts are this stupid.


:smile:another typical tactic...name calling...I had you at about 35 yrs old.
Now I'm thinking 23


----------



## lighterup

well that was fun

You know what the difference is between me and HACKY?
I can do this alll day long solo...he needs a harem around him


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> well that was fun


I'm glad that you find joy in embarrassing yourself. 


Can we get back to Steve posting the replies from the panel manufacturers? Thanks.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I'm glad that you find joy in embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> Can we get back to Steve posting the replies from the panel manufacturers? Thanks.


No. Leave Steve out of this.

The only person showing his A*S is you about this stupid GEC 
argument that your SPAZZING over...vomiting daily. WE are
sick of your cr*p around here. More people than you are
realizing.

Sorry , but someone had to say it.


----------



## HackWork

Being Steve's lapdog isn't going to get you anywhere.

You have 85 posts in this thread. If you don't like it, stop clicking on it like I told you before your emotional hissyfit tonight.

Steve, we are waiting for your response.


----------



## HackWork

Your edit:


lighterup said:


> You know what the difference is between me and HACKY?
> I can do this alll day long solo...he needs a harem around him


It's not that I "need a harem". It's just that the information that I posted is backed up with code and evidence and people are on my side against Steve's constant posting of bullcrap.

So please, stop acting all noble because youre all by yourself due to aligning yourself with chicken Steve.


----------



## RePhase277

Why is lighterup getting flack? What did I miss? I tried looking it up, but the search index is out of date.


----------



## macmikeman

RePhase277 said:


> Why is lighterup getting flack? What did I miss? I tried looking it up, but the search index is out of date.


I try and try to be as witty as you , but alas it just don't work well for me......
Confounditall.......


----------



## macmikeman

Jrannis comes up with good ones all the time too. Not kidding.


----------



## HackWork

Let's keep this on topic guys.


----------



## RePhase277

macmikeman said:


> I try and try to be as witty as you , but alas it just don't work well for me......
> Confounditall.......


It comes from decades of straight-up, 700-proof, not giving a fu**.


----------



## flyboy

Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


----------



## HackWork

flyboy said:


> Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


Strictly from a code standpoint, romex connectors aren't listed for use with a single conductor. So they technically wouldn't be compliant to use. The same way as how it's not compliant to thread a PVC male adapter into a meter hub, even though it's common practice to do it. Listing BS.


----------



## eddy current

flyboy said:


> Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?



My opinion.

Of course, if you want to use a connector, you can use any type you want because there is no code requirement.

I have always used an L-16 romex connector because that is what I was taught. I would break the little tabs off so the GEC fit better. 

Canadian panels do not have the little hole like the US panels have so everyone uses a 1/2” KO and some type of connector, metal, plastic, whatever.

I do agree there is no code reference in either the NEC or the CEC that requires it though.

ETA. None of those connectors are rated for a bare wire, as stated by Hack above, but I doubt an inspector would care. They sure don’t up here anyway.


----------



## bostonPedro

eddy current said:


> My opinion.
> 
> Of course, if you want to use a connector, you can use any type you want because there is no code requirement.
> 
> I have always used an L-16 romex connector because that is what I was taught. I would break the little tabs off so the GEC fit better.
> 
> Canadian panels do not have the little hole like the US panels have so everyone uses a 1/2” KO and some type of connector, metal, plastic, whatever.
> 
> I do agree there is no code reference in either the NEC or the CEC that requires it though.



In general most people have done things over the years technically illegal because they didnt use a product listed for bringing a GEC into a cabinet ie romex connector but now we have a listed for use GEC hole in US panels as well as numerous listed connectors to bring the GEC into the cabinet. 250-8(8) "Other listed means" is what the Kenny Clamp is exploiting to sell their product and they may actually be right. Or they me be full of crap.
Does 250-8(7) "Connections that are part of a listed assembly" cover the manufactured GEC hole? 
If so how is a hole a connection? Its a damn hole.
Does 250-8 even apply to entering a cabinet? 250-8 looks more to do with with terminating the GEC or bonding of conductors and YET companies have products on the market using 250-8 as the very reason for their product and lets not forget that companies run the NEC not electricians and engineers as was the case in the past. 
Something seems fishy to me and I dont like it.


----------



## MTW

There is no code that addresses the GEC entering the enclosure. It's just that simple. I'll keep repeating from now until eternity.


----------



## eddy current

Companies will always make products if they think they can make money. 

Kenny isn’t rich enough to make the NEC develop a new code like the Arc fault companies are :wink:


----------



## bostonPedro

eddy current said:


> Companies will always make products if they think they can make money.
> 
> Kenny isn’t rich enough to make the NEC develop a new code like the Arc fault companies are :wink:



True but Arlington and Bridgeport are and they make similar products. I have a strong suspicion that they are going to use 250-8 to make us have to purchase their products in another code cycle or for some inspector to point to 250-8 because he buys into their point of view


----------



## HackWork

bostonPedro said:


> In general most people have done things over the years technically illegal because they didnt use a product listed for bringing a GEC into a cabinet ie romex connector but now we have a listed for use GEC hole in US panels as well as numerous listed connectors to bring the GEC into the cabinet. 250-8(8) "Other listed means" is what the Kenny Clamp is exploiting to sell their product and they may actually be right. Or they me be full of crap.
> Does 250-8(7) "Connections that are part of a listed assembly" cover the manufactured GEC hole?
> If so how is a hole a connection? Its a damn hole.
> Does 250-8 even apply to entering a cabinet? 250-8 looks more to do with with terminating the GEC or bonding of conductors and YET companies have products on the market using 250-8 as the very reason for their product and lets not forget that companies run the NEC not electricians and engineers as was the case in the past.
> Something seems fishy to me and I dont like it.


 I would agree with you if you delete the part about giving any merit whatsoever to a manufacturer’s sales pitch. It’s a gimmick. Them quoting code does not make it so.

It’s like one of those tornado things you put into the air intake on your car to make it swirl and give you 50 more horsepower. Is that true because the manufacturer said so?


----------



## MTW

There is no code that addresses the GEC entering the enclosure. It's just that simple. If everyone simply accepted that reality, we would not have this 57 page thread right now.


----------



## HackWork

bostonPedro said:


> True but Arlington and Bridgeport are and they make similar products. I have a strong suspicion that they are going to use 250-8 to make us have to purchase their products in another code cycle or for some inspector to point to 250-8 because he buys into their point of view


You may be right in that we will be required in the future to use a connector to bring the grounding electrode conductor into a panel or meter. But it will not be because of that article. A new article would have to be added. The article you quoted does not require a connector or bonding. It doesn’t apply in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## bostonPedro

HackWork said:


> I would agree with you if you delete the part about giving any merit whatsoever to a manufacturer’s sales pitch. It’s a gimmick. Them quoting code does not make it so.
> 
> It’s like one of those tornado things you put into the air intake on your car to make it swirl and give you 50 more horsepower. Is that true because the manufacturer said so?



I dont give merit to their sales pitch but I do recognize that there are now listed products for entering a GEC into a cabinet so there is no longer a need for us to use a romex connector or any other not listed method that was common in the past if we cant use the listed hole that is and sooner or later I have a strong suspicion inspectors will be saying that also. I really think companies are trying to set it up so we have to use their products down the road


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> I do agree there is no code reference in either the NEC or the CEC that requires it though.
> 
> ETA. None of those connectors are rated for a bare wire, as stated by Hack above, but I doubt an inspector would care. They sure don’t up here anyway.


About a 1000 or so posts back, I said that an inspector told me that a connector was required for strain-relief; that is when I asked my question about being required to use an "unapproved" connector (metal or plastic) for the GEC as strain-relief... which to be perfectly honest I thought was the point of the initial question in this entire thread.

Cheers
John


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> About a 1000 or so posts back, I said that an inspector told me that a connector was required for strain-relief; that is when I asked my question about being required to use an "unapproved" connector (metal or plastic) for the GEC as strain-relief... which to be perfectly honest I thought was the point of the initial question in this entire thread.
> 
> Cheers
> John


He was most likely giving you his opinion because he has always seen some type of connector used. Did he give you a code reference and what type of connector did he suggest? This can be argued forever until is it specifically addressed in the code.

There is no right answer here IMO.

Looks like EMTNUT will get his post #2112 after all :vs_rocking_banana::vs_rocking_banana:


----------



## Navyguy

Unfortunately I can remember yesterday, let alone 20 or 30 years ago...  I would assume it was related to 12-120 or 12-3022 which I think I posted about 500 posts ago!

Cheers

John


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> Strictly from a code standpoint, romex connectors aren't listed for use with a single conductor. So they technically wouldn't be compliant to use. The same way as how it's not compliant to thread a PVC male adapter into a meter hub, even though it's common practice to do it. Listing BS.


I am one of the people on this planet who do not consider a gec as an individual "conductor". I know that may come as a controversial subject. It is not intended to carry normal current. The best I can consider it to be is a possible far fetched attempt to create an equal potential safety net, while disregarding all demonstrated knowledge of step potential rings (loops?) or whatever the voltage potential step thingamajigs are officially called. Therefore, as I said in this diatribe, I feel a gec is perfectly acceptable to be used with a romex connector , since it is not really a conductor in the sense of the word as it usually applies to normal current carrying conductors.


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> I am one of the people on this planet who do not consider a gec as an individual "conductor". I know that may come as a controversial subject. It is not intended to carry normal current. The best I can consider it to be is a possible far fetched attempt to create an equal potential safety net, while disregarding all demonstrated knowledge of step potential rings (loops?) or whatever the voltage potential step thingamajigs are officially called. Therefore, as I said in this diatribe, I feel a gec is perfectly acceptable to be used with a romex connector , since it is not really a conductor in the sense of the word as it usually applies to normal current carrying conductors.


All that is fine, I don't disagree with any of it other than the part about being able to use a romex connector.

A romex connector is listed to be used with certain things, a GEC is not one of them. I agree that a GEC is not a "conductor" as cited in most of the NEC, but it's still not specified as something that a romex connector will accept.

I gave the example earlier in the thread: You can use tie-wire or a bent over nail to support 3 romex cables. But if you use a romex staple with a listing, you can only use it according to it's listing, which includes only the combination/amount of cables that it specifies. 

So, IMO, the GEC can complaintly be brought into a panel thru the small hole or thru a connector listed for that purpose, but not a romex connector.


----------



## Wiresmith

flyboy said:


> Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


any of these are perfectly suited for paper weights (might have to use a box of the plastic ones)


----------



## bostonPedro

Something else I have noticed is how the code makes sure to state "ferrous" in parts of 250 and that low and behold the Kenny Clamp is brass as is the Bridgeport alternative while the Arlington GEC connector is zinc. All non ferrous metals. 
Last time I comment on this subject.


----------



## HackWork

bostonPedro said:


> Something else I have noticed is how the code makes sure to state "ferrous" in parts of 250 and that low and behold the Kenny Clamp is brass as is the Bridgeport alternative while the Arlington GEC connector is zinc. All non ferrous metals.


 Who cares?


> Last time I comment on this subject.


If only that were true...


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> Unfortunately I can remember yesterday, let alone 20 or 30 years ago...  I would assume it was related to 12-120 or 12-3022 which I think I posted about 500 posts ago!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


Those codes do not apply to the GEC. 

Now that the 2018 CEC has made clear descriptions of the words “conductor” and “cable” in the definitions, those codes are also more clear.


----------



## Navyguy

Do you say that because it is in Section 12 and not Section 6 or 10?

Rule 12-000 has a pretty broad scope which does not include or exclude anything from Section 6 or 10.

Cheers
John


----------



## eddy current

No I say that because both those codes, 12-120 and 12-3022 use either the words “conductor” or “ cable” which are not used for a GEC therefore they do not apply IMO.

Here are the definitions

Conductor = A conductive material that is constructed for the purpose of carrying electric current

Cable = A complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors, which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength members, and insulating and protective material, with a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection to the assembly

There is also now a definition for a bare conductor which is used as a GEC.

Bare conductor = a conductor having no covering or electrical insulation.

ETA.
12-120(1) conductors shall be supported so that no damaging strain is imposed on the terminals of any electrical apparatus or devices or on joints or taps.

That code could be argued as covering all types of conductors, bare or insulated but would a staple right where it leaves the panel not work?

I think both the CEC and NEC need to address this specifically and in the CEC, is should be in section 10 under 10-116 Installation of grounding conductors.


----------



## B-Nabs

eddy current said:


> No I say that because both those codes, 12-120 and 12-3022 use either the words “conductor” or “ cable” which are not used for a GEC therefore they do not apply IMO.
> 
> Here are the definitions
> 
> Conductor = A conductive material that is constructed for the purpose of carrying electric current
> 
> Cable = A complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors, which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength members, and insulating and protective material, with a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection to the assembly
> 
> There is also now a definition for a bare conductor which is used as a GEC.
> 
> Bare conductor = a conductor having no covering or electrical insulation.


I don't have a very strong opinion about any of this, but I would like to point out that if we accept that a GEC is a "bare conductor", then it follows that it is therefore a conductor. Conductor is a category, under which a bare conductor falls.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom right hand corner you can see where Square D says their meter pans have a 5/16" KO for the grounding conductor.
> 
> 
> View attachment 119074
> 
> 
> 
> This concern now has a case # at that manufacturer
> 
> ~CS~
Click to expand...

 @chicken steve Can you please give us that case number?





chicken steve said:


> Let me post what i can harvest from the '_powers that be_' , and then decide if it's all a waste of time
> 
> _deal?_
> 
> ~CS~


Yes, deal. Just like I told you last month when you said it. So what have you received from these manufacturers??



chicken steve said:


> This is just ONE source......I'm not done yet :no:~CS~:shifty:


 It seems like you are done because you still haven't posted on response from any of these manufacturers other than the email from a Milbank sales rep that Milbank confirmed was false.

Let's go, post it. Do something. Acknowledge this like a reasonable adult for once.


----------



## brian john

bostonPedro said:


> Something else I have noticed is how the code makes sure to state "ferrous" in parts of 250 and that low and behold the Kenny Clamp is brass as is the Bridgeport alternative while the Arlington GEC connector is zinc. All non ferrous metals.
> Last time I comment on this subject.


*CORRECTED FOR ERRORS. *

I could care less about this discussion BUT if you are a believer of the kenny clamp and you are an electrician how to heck would you not realize this just from common knowledge of the materials used.

All nonferrous metals.

How else would it gain its magical properties? One would think it should be a conductive connector IF REQUIRED. This would be better, offering a ground connection at point of entry, which is what we do with conduit.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Let's go, post it. Do something. Acknowledge this like a reasonable adult for once.


Steve blatantly slanders other members by calling them racists with no evidence whatsoever. You don't expect someone that dishonest and disgusting to be a stand up guy on this issue, do you?


----------



## brian john

Try this.


https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Standards-development-process/NFPA-Technical-questions


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Steve blatantly slanders other members by calling them racists with no evidence whatsoever. You don't expect someone that dishonest and disgusting to be a stand up guy on this issue, do you?


I will make him account for his words and actions. I have accepted it as my duty.




chicken steve said:


> At this point i've probably a good dz emails to reps Dennis , but yes i may need to make a call specifically asking for the engineering dept.


So tell us about these dozen emails that you sent to reps. Please. Why would you continually talk about asking the manufacturers and then ignore when we ask you who you emailed and what they replied with?

Do you realize how bad that makes you look?

Answer for yourself.


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> Where's Charlie Trout when he's needed?
> 
> ~CS~





chicken steve said:


> We have contacted manufacturers , and we may even make Charlie Trout's code of the day cut Ed
> 
> ~CS~


So first you throw out Charlie Trout as an authority... Twice.



Roger said:


> He's here Steve.
> 
> From Charlie's code question of the day.
> 
> Roger


Then when Roger shows you that Charlie Trout says you are wrong, you post this:



chicken steve said:


> Then I guess it's time for 'old Chuck to _retire _Roger
> 
> ~CS~


So not only the entire world (other than 4-5 hold-outs) agree that the GEC doesn't need to be bonded as it exits a panel and that the little hole could be used for the GEC, but the very person who you name dropped as being the ultimate authority does too.. 

But since he didn't say what you wanted, it's time for him to retire??? He's suddenly dead wrong, so much so that he should just quit???

And still you won't even speak to this BS that you keep posting. Do you really think that ignoring it will make it go away, like a small child would do? It will never, ever stop @chicken steve


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> No I say that because both those codes, 12-120 and 12-3022 use either the words “conductor” or “ cable” which are not used for a GEC therefore they do not apply IMO.
> 
> Here are the definitions
> 
> Conductor = A conductive material that is constructed for the purpose of carrying electric current
> 
> Cable = A complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors, which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength members, and insulating and protective material, with a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection to the assembly
> 
> There is also now a definition for a bare conductor which is used as a GEC.
> 
> Bare conductor = a conductor having no covering or electrical insulation.
> 
> ETA.
> 12-120(1) conductors shall be supported so that no damaging strain is imposed on the terminals of any electrical apparatus or devices or on joints or taps.
> 
> That code could be argued as covering all types of conductors, bare or insulated but would a staple right where it leaves the panel not work?
> 
> I think both the CEC and NEC need to address this specifically and in the CEC, is should be in section 10 under 10-116 Installation of grounding conductors.


OK... so what is the definition of the “Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC)” if it is not “Conductor”?



OESC 2015 said:


> - Conductor — a wire or cable, or other form of metal, installed for the purpose of conveying electric current from one piece of electrical equipment to another or to ground.





CEC 2012 said:


> - Conductor — a wire or cable, or other form of metal, installed for the purpose of conveying electric current from one piece of electrical equipment to another or to ground.





OESC 2015 said:


> - Grounding conductor — the conductor used to connect the service equipment or system to the grounding electrode (see Appendix B).





OESC 2015 said:


> OESC 2015 Appendix B - Grounding conductor
> It is intended that the grounding conductor will terminate on the enclosure for the service box or protective devices supplying the system in cases where the system is not grounded, and at the internal bus for the grounded conductor where the system is grounded.





CEC 2015 said:


> - Grounding conductor — the conductor used to connect the service equipment or system to the grounding electrode (see Appendix B).





CEC 2015 said:


> CEC 2015 Appendix B - Grounding conductor
> It is intended that the grounding conductor will terminate on the enclosure for the service box or protective devices supplying the system in cases where the system is not grounded, and at the internal bus for the grounded conductor where the system is grounded.


So I randomly grabbed a rule regarding grounding electrodes (rule 10-702(b)) where it states



OESC 2015 said:


> 10-702 Spacing and interconnection of grounding electrodes





OESC 2015 said:


> Where multiple grounding electrodes exist at a building, including those used for signal circuits, radio, lightning protection, communication, community antenna distribution systems or any other purpose, they shall be
> (a) separated by at least 2 m from each other;
> (b) bonded together with a conductor
> (i) made of material permitted by Rule 10-802 for grounding conductors and sized not smaller than
> (A) No. 6 AWG if of copper; or
> (B) No. 4 AWG if of aluminum; and​(ii) protected by location from mechanical damage; and​(c) in the case of lightning protection systems, bonded together in accordance with Item (b) at or below ground level.


So I think it is a conductor... I agree that it is not a cable; although I do not know where you found the definition of “Cable” because it is not in the CEC or the OESC (at least under definitions).

In the end, I agree that in theory you do not need a cable connector for support / strain-relief, it is the same discussion about putting NMD into a conduit stub to a box, if it “terminates” in the box you need some sort of strain-relief where it enters the conduit, a staple is considered insufficient.

Cheers
John


----------



## sbrn33

I would be honestly interested if CS really has ever used a Kenny clamp IRL. The few pics he is willing to post of his work tell me no.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> I would be honestly interested if CS really has ever used a Kenny clamp IRL. The few pics he is willing to post of his work tell me no.


I am trying to be open, honest, and fair here, so I will tell you that Steve has posted that he has used romex connectors and the small hole before. He is saying that he always got away with it, but it's still wrong. 

His problem is that he can't cite code saying that it's wrong or any manufacturer that won't allow it thru the hole that they put there for the GEC.


----------



## lighterup

RePhase277 said:


> Why is lighterup getting flack? What did I miss? I tried looking it up, but the search index is out of date.


I was giving it , not getting it.


----------



## lighterup

eddy current said:


> No I say that because both those codes, 12-120 and 12-3022 use either the words “conductor” or “ cable” which are not used for a GEC therefore they do not apply IMO.
> 
> Here are the definitions
> 
> Conductor = A conductive material that is constructed for the purpose of carrying electric current
> 
> Cable = A complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors, which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength members, and insulating and protective material, with a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection to the assembly
> 
> There is also now a definition for a bare conductor which is used as a GEC.
> 
> Bare conductor = a conductor having no covering or electrical insulation.
> 
> ETA.
> 12-120(1) conductors shall be supported so that no damaging strain is imposed on the terminals of any electrical apparatus or devices or on joints or taps.
> 
> That code could be argued as covering all types of conductors, bare or insulated but would a staple right where it leaves the panel not work?
> 
> I think both the CEC and NEC need to address this specifically and in the CEC, is should be in section 10 under 10-116 Installation of grounding conductors.


I agree with this. As I was taught that a GEC is a non current carrying conductor.
"current" is measurable Fault is to high & too fast to measure and opens
the circuit immidiately. Current allows the circuit to function


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> I was giving it , not getting it.


You're so mean.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> You're so mean.


Don't start .or I'll I'll stop stop taking taking my my meds meds


----------



## B-Nabs

lighterup said:


> I agree with this. As I was taught that a GEC is a non current carrying conductor.
> "current" is measurable Fault is to high & too fast to measure and opens
> the circuit immidiately. Current allows the circuit to function


Fault current is still current. The GEC is non current carrying under normal operation. But it is still a conductor. I mean, the C in GEC stands for conductor. What is it for if not to carry current under a particular circumstance? 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork

B-Nabs said:


> Fault current is still current. The GEC is non current carrying under normal operation. But it is still a conductor. I mean, the C in GEC stands for conductor. What is it for if not to carry current under a particular circumstance?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


I agree with you about the semantics. But the code that surrounds a CCC doesn't include the GEC. Entry into panels, use in raceways, burial depth, etc.


----------



## macmikeman

If this thread was on a boating forum we would have struck the reef and sunk a good while back.


----------



## sbrn33

Hi mac.


----------



## macmikeman

Hi Sabrina.


----------



## B-Nabs

HackWork said:


> I agree with you about the semantics. But the code that surrounds a CCC doesn't include the GEC. Entry into panels, use in raceways, burial depth, etc.


No argument from me there. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Navyguy

HackWork said:


> I agree with you about the semantics. But the code that surrounds a CCC doesn't include the GEC. Entry into panels, use in raceways, burial depth, etc.


Is the NEC definition of a Conductor different then the CEC? The CEC includes the ground.

Cheers

John


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> although I do not know where you found the definition of “Cable” because it is not in the CEC or the OESC (at least under definitions).



2018 CEC in definitions on p.66

All the definitions you posted are from 2012 and 2015. My point was they have all changed for clarity in the new 2018 CEC.


----------



## HackWork

Navyguy said:


> Is the NEC definition of a Conductor different then the CEC? The CEC includes the ground.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


I've never looked up the definition in the NEC and never opened a CEC. I just know that a GEC* is completely different and treated as such in the NEC. 


*In this instance I am only talking about the GEC, not the EGC or any other item we would call a "ground".


----------



## eddy current

All the definitions for conductors have changed in the 2018 and they changed the way many codes specify which conductors they are talking about. Eg bare conductor, insulated conductor, covered conductor, cable etc.

2018 CEC grounding conductor. The conductor used to connect the service equipment or system to the grounding electrode.


ETA.
Also in appendix B for grounding conductor (equivalent to the GEC in the NEC) it states in an *ungrounded* system it must terminate on the enclosure, but in a *grounded* system, it must terminate at the internal buss.


----------



## HackWork

If your GEC is just called the "grounding conductor", what are the EGC's called to differentiate them?


----------



## HackWork

Here are the 2017 NEC definitions:

*Conductor, Bare.* A conductor having no covering or electrical
insulation whatsoever. (CMP-6)

*Conductor, Covered.* A conductor encased within material of
composition or thickness that is not recognized by this Code as
electrical insulation. (CMP-6)

*Conductor, Insulated.* A conductor encased within material of
composition and thickness that is recognized by this Code as
electrical insulation. (CMP-6)

*Grounded (Grounding).* Connected (connecting) to ground
or to a conductive body that extends the ground connection.
(CMP-5)

*Grounded, Solidly.* Connected to ground without inserting any
resistor or impedance device. (CMP-5)

*Grounded Conductor.* A system or circuit conductor that is
intentionally grounded. (CMP-5)

*Grounding Conductor, Equipment (EGC).* The conductive
path(s) that provides a ground-fault current path and connects
normally non–current-carrying metal parts of equipment together and to the system grounded conductor or to the
grounding electrode conductor, or both. (CMP-5)
Informational Note No. 1: It is recognized that the equipment
grounding conductor also performs bonding.
Informational Note No. 2: See 250.118 for a list of acceptable
equipment grounding conductors.

*Grounding Electrode.* A conducting object through which a
direct connection to earth is established. (CMP-5)

*Grounding Electrode Conductor.* A conductor used to connect
the system grounded conductor or the equipment to a grounding
electrode or to a point on the grounding electrode system.
(CMP-5)


----------



## eddy current

HackWork said:


> If your GEC is just called the "grounding conductor", what are the EGC's called to differentiate them?


GEC = A grounding conductor.

EGC = A bonding conductor

Neutral = A grounded or identified conductor


----------



## HackWork

eddy current said:


> GEC = A grounding conductor.
> 
> EGC = A bonding conductor
> 
> Neutral = A grounded or identified conductor


I see, now that you mention it I now remember seeing canadians say the bond wire when we mostly just call it a ground or EGC.


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> All the definitions for conductors have changed in the 2018 and they changed the way many codes specify which conductors they are talking about. Eg bare conductor, insulated conductor, covered conductor, cable etc.
> 
> 2018 CEC grounding conductor. The conductor used to connect the service equipment or system to the grounding electrode.
> 
> 
> ETA.
> Also in appendix B for grounding conductor (equivalent to the GEC in the NEC) it states in an *ungrounded* system it must terminate on the enclosure, but in a *grounded* system, it must terminate at the internal buss.


So you forced me to open up the 2018 now … Notwithstanding this discussion started prior to 2018… I don’t see how the new definitions really change the root of the argument (being that strain-relief is required for the conductor) and not the bonding requirement that a majority of the other posts are about.

New (CEC 2018) definition of “Conductor” as you quoted states what it will do; carry current. The three sub-definitions; while useful add nothing to the main definition because they are all designed to “carry current”. The “Grounding Conductor” definition has not changed and neither has the Appendix B statement.

In a previous post (#1146) you linked the GEC to the “Bare Conductor”; I am not sure where this comes from. While I agree that a majority of installations will use a bare GEC, there is not a requirement for it to be a bare conductor; it can just as easily be an insulated conductor. It is conceivable that you could install a “bare neutral” (Rule 6-308) which of course is not a GEC either.

So while I say it is not a “show stopper” that there is not a connector to provide “strain relief only” on the GEC (or any part of the grounding / bonding system) as it enters the meter socket or panel, I can support the argument that one is required because of either 12-120 or 12-3022. I also feel the same way about the NMD and conduit…

In the end I think... a conductor, is a conductor, is a conductor, and they are all designed to carry current, either through normal operations or during a fault.

I also think that we specify some conductors such as the grounding (GEC) conductor, bonding (EGC) conductor, identified (neutral) conductor, phase conductors, parallel conductors, etc; but we do that for specific reasons that are not required for other conductors; we say the "grounding conductor must be installed to the ground electrode" or something like that... we don't say "the "bare conductor" must be installed to the ground electrode" or even "the "conductor" must be installed to the electrode"; we say "grounding conductor" to specify it from other conductors when it is required.

Cheers
John


----------



## eddy current

All great points John and I see what your saying and agree with most of it.

What I don’t agree with is the strain relief code as the one that makes us have to bond the GEC as it leaves a panel. A plastic romex connector for instance, which is used for this purpose all the time, does not provide strain relief at all for a #6 bare or insulated GEC. The other common connector used is an L-16 romex connector. While it would provide a better strain relief than plastic, it is not designed for that purpose.

This is a specific situation and it deserves a specific explanation in the code IMO.

Keep in mind that I have always used some type of connector because that is what I was taught, I still think the code needs to be more clear on it.


----------



## lighterup

HackWork said:


> I agree with you about the semantics. But the code that surrounds a CCC doesn't include the GEC. Entry into panels, use in raceways, burial depth, etc.


and it does not require sheathing for the reasons i explained


----------



## brian john

lighterup said:


> I agree with this. As I was taught that a GEC is a non current carrying conductor.
> "current" is measurable Fault is to high & too fast to measure and opens
> the circuit immidiately. Current allows the circuit to function


We can measure the current of a fault, voltage, and sinewave of both.


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> What I don’t agree with is the strain relief code as the one that makes us have to bond the GEC as it leaves a panel.


Just to clarify, I agree that the connector is not there to bond the GEC to the enclosure, its only purpose if for strain relief, which I happen to agree that it provides little to none in real world application.

Cheers
John


----------



## lighterup

brian john said:


> We can measure the current of a fault, voltage, and sinewave of both.


How? 
You would have to be set up permanently on standby waiting for a
fault to ground to happen.

I'm not saying it's not a conductor , I'm saying it's not a *current*
carrying conductor.(if we're still talking about the GEC that is.


----------



## Navyguy

lighterup said:


> How?
> You would have to be set up permanently on standby waiting for a
> fault to ground to happen.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not a conductor , I'm saying it's not a *current*
> carrying conductor.(if we're still talking about the GEC that is.


Is a bridge still a bridge if no one goes over it? What if someone only went over it once; or just in case of emergency?

Cheers

John


----------



## lighterup

Navyguy said:


> Is a bridge still a bridge if no one goes over it? What if someone only went over it once; or just in case of emergency?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


huh?


----------



## lighterup

Navyguy said:


> Is a bridge still a bridge if no one goes over it? What if someone only went over it once; or just in case of emergency?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


Okau John , humor me. 

Why doesn't it require any thhn or a sheathing around it?
It can just be a bare piece of copper...why?


----------



## HackWork

lighterup said:


> Okau John , humor me.
> 
> Why doesn't it require any thhn or a sheathing around it?
> It can just be a bare piece of copper...why?


Because it doesn't need to be insulated from anything else.


----------



## Navyguy

lighterup said:


> huh?


I could not find a "pontificating" emoji! 

My point was (or at least trying to raise) is... what is the threshold that has to be crossed for a piece of wire to be a current carrying conductor?

In other words if you never cross the bridge is it still a bridge?
If a conductor never carries a current is it still a current carrying conductor?

Is a bare neutral a current carrying conductor?

Cheers
John


----------



## lighterup

Navyguy said:


> I could not find a "pontificating" emoji!
> 
> My point was (or at least trying to raise) is... what is the threshold that has to be crossed for a piece of wire to be a current carrying conductor?
> 
> In other words if you never cross the bridge is it still a bridge?
> If a conductor never carries a current is it still a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Is a bare neutral a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Cheers
> John


Great point about the bare neutral ...HOWEVER...that neutral
is absolutely not allowed to be bare after the Main as opposed
to an egc (such as in NM cable ) is still allowed to be bare.

The egc is also for a fault...if something accidently gets energized
like metal housings of a recess can or an appliance.

IDK...I have said this before...since I was a learner new to
the trade , no body has ever satisfactorily explained article
250 to me and I'm of the belief it's cause few really understand it.


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> I could not find a "pontificating" emoji!
> 
> My point was (or at least trying to raise) is... what is the threshold that has to be crossed for a piece of wire to be a current carrying conductor?
> 
> In other words if you never cross the bridge is it still a bridge?
> If a conductor never carries a current is it still a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Is a bare neutral a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Cheers
> John


But a bare neutral can not be run exposed like a GEC can. Apples to oranges.


----------



## brian john

Navyguy said:


> Is a bridge still a bridge if no one goes over it? What if someone only went over it once; or just in case of emergency?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


If you turn a bridge upside down is it a tunnel?


----------



## emtnut

Navyguy said:


> I could not find a "pontificating" emoji!
> 
> My point was (or at least trying to raise) is... *what is the threshold that has to be crossed for a piece of wire to be a current carrying conductor*?
> 
> In other words if you never cross the bridge is it still a bridge?
> If a conductor never carries a current is it still a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Is a bare neutral a current carrying conductor?
> 
> Cheers
> John


Hopefully at a threshold that I don't have to derate for it :biggrin:


----------



## emtnut

brian john said:


> If you turn a bridge upside down is it a tunnel?


No :surprise: ... It's a disaster :biggrin:


----------



## macmikeman

This reminds me of Led Zeppelin.


----------



## emtnut

me too :biggrin:


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> But a bare neutral can not be run exposed like a GEC can. Apples to oranges.


Agreed, but it is still a current carrying conductor, which is my point.

Cheers

John


----------



## macmikeman

Am I the only one who is utterly embarrassed at Led Zeppelin whenever they performed live? They stunk, but I love all the studio albums. 

Gec's are not required to be secured to the stupid box, and no Kenny clamps required to choke the chicken.


----------



## emtnut

Yeah Mac, they were pretty high most of the time.

There are a few good ones thou.

Here's a better version


----------



## eddy current

Navyguy said:


> Agreed, but it is still a current carrying conductor, which is my point.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


I disagree. Yes it may carry a small amount under certain circumstances, but it is wrong to call it a current carrying conductor IMO. They are different. In recent code cycles they actually changed the code and now require a smaller conductor for the GEC due to it not carrying as much current as once thought. They have different definitions in our code as well.

Describe a conductor with one sentence, and describe the grounding conductor (GEC) with one sentence. The definitions of them in our code does exactly that and only one of them says it’s for conveying current.


----------



## Arrow3030

The led zepplin BBC album is awesome and recorded live. I saw them live 20 years ago and it was okay. Rush is way better.

I remember the first and maybe only time I did two risers for two separate meter mains on the same service mounted side by side. I most have read all of chapter two 3 times before I felt okay about the GEC being bonded together.


----------



## Navyguy

eddy current said:


> I disagree. Yes it may carry a small amount under certain circumstances, but it is wrong to call it a current carrying conductor IMO. They are different. In recent code cycles they actually changed the code and now require a smaller conductor for the GEC due to it not carrying as much current as once thought. They have different definitions in our code as well.
> 
> Describe a conductor with one sentence, and describe the grounding conductor (GEC) with one sentence. The definitions of them in our code does exactly that and only one of them says it’s for conveying current.


I agree that they have a different purpose. Perhaps I am being overly simplistic...:shifty:

But I cannot fathom a piece of wire, CU or AL, insulated or not to be used for anything else than carrying current. That current may be "normal" current or "fault" current, but it is still the same. I would also say (agree?) that in general vernacular we do refer to the standard phase and neutral conductors as "current carrying" and the GED and EGC as "fault carrying", but the point is that regardless of their intended usage, they are fundamentally just a conductor.

I also agree that a conductor used for grounding may have different requirements, thus the ability (requirement?) to separate it out from other "general conductors", is important; such as sizing and some of the other things mentioned.

I don't think anyone would ever say that the purpose of the GEC is something more then to convey current to the electrode... albeit in rare or fault situations.

Cheers
John


----------



## Navyguy

brian john said:


> If you turn a bridge upside down is it a tunnel?


I think it is broken! Did they not try that with the Tacoma Bridge?





 
Cheers

John


----------



## macmikeman

Navyguy said:


> I agree that they have a different purpose. Perhaps I am being overly simplistic...:shifty:
> 
> But I cannot fathom a piece of wire, CU or AL, insulated or not to be used for anything else than carrying current. That current may be "normal" current or "fault" current, but it is still the same. I would also say (agree?) that in general vernacular we do refer to the standard phase and neutral conductors as "current carrying" and the GED and EGC as "fault carrying", but the point is that regardless of their intended usage, they are fundamentally just a conductor.
> 
> I also agree that a conductor used for grounding may have different requirements, thus the ability (requirement?) to separate it out from other "general conductors", is important; such as sizing and some of the other things mentioned.
> 
> *I don't think anyone would ever say that the purpose of the GEC is something more then to convey current to the electrode... albeit in rare or fault situations.*
> 
> Cheers
> John



If they would fix the stupid search button then you could find where I detailed the actual reason for it , many years ago. 

I stated it is because it and the ground rod are there as an anchor to hold the house down onto the foundation , cause any scientific well studied and highly intelligent individual such as myself knows the earth is ROUND, and the spinning of it will fling the house out into orbit due to centrifugal force if it isn't tied down in this way. And Remember: Macmikeman is always right.


----------



## brian john

Navyguy said:


> I think it is broken! Did they not try that with the Tacoma Bridge?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XggxeuFDaDU
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


A case where harmonics is a problem.


----------



## RePhase277

macmikeman said:


> Am I the only one who is utterly embarrassed at Led Zeppelin whenever they performed live? They stunk, but I love all the studio albums.


I feel you homie. I'm a big Zep fan, but have always hated their live stuff. And they have no one to blame but themselves (mostly Page) for making th studio albums soooooo good by recording multiple guitar tracks, etc. They simply couldn't keep up with their recorded selves.


----------



## HackWork

telsa said:


> HackWork said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you are is someone who just made a completely wrong code statement and isn't willing to back it up with code, because you can't.
> 
> I'm not searching thru all of your posts to find something that isn't true.
> 
> Post the code or admit you are wrong. I can't believe you are literally pulling a chicken steve here.
> 
> 
> 
> But, I already have.
> 
> BTW, the very reason these gadgets even exist is because of the NEC demands.
> 
> Without the NEC insistence, no-one would manufacture them, as they are a compelled buy.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> There is NO chance that you win on this one.
> 
> That your AHJ has been lax for Hax... I'll grant you that one.
> 
> BTW, the rest of the crew remembers the citation.
> 
> Ain't that tough ?
Click to expand...

:sad:


----------



## HackWork

@chicken steve

Why won't you tell us which dozen manufacturers you emailed asking about the GEC thru their small hole? Why won't you post their responses?


----------



## lighterup

eddy current said:


> I disagree. Yes it may carry a small amount under certain circumstances, but it is wrong to call it a current carrying conductor IMO. They are different. In recent code cycles they actually changed the code and now require a smaller conductor for the GEC due to it not carrying as much current as once thought. They have different definitions in our code as well.
> 
> Describe a conductor with one sentence, and describe the grounding conductor (GEC) with one sentence. The definitions of them in our code does exactly that and only one of them says it’s for conveying current.


Thank You...this is what I'm saying. I should have paid more 
attention in school..maybe I'd be better spoken ...but Led Zepplin,
Boston , Rolling Stones , pretty girls who enjoyed a joint or two , 
Ozzie ... etc etc...it was a very distracting time in life


----------



## lighterup

RePhase277 said:


> I feel you homie. I'm a big Zep fan, but have always hated their live stuff. And they have no one to blame but themselves (mostly Page) for making th studio albums soooooo good by recording multiple guitar tracks, etc. They simply couldn't keep up with their recorded selves.


I enjoyed Live @ Madison Square Garden...very much


----------



## RePhase277

lighterup said:


> I enjoyed Live @ Madison Square Garden...very much


Yeah being hammered out of your mind has that effect on chitty concerts.


----------



## MTW

RePhase277 said:


> Yeah being hammered out of your mind has that effect on chitty concerts.


That probably explains the vast majority of hard rock from that time frame - hammered performers, hammered concertgoers = distorted memory of the past.


----------



## brian john

> Originally Posted by telsa View Post
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by HackWork View Post
> No, what you are is someone who just made a completely wrong code statement and isn't willing to back it up with code, because you can't.
> 
> I'm not searching thru all of your posts to find something that isn't true.
> 
> Post the code or admit you are wrong. I can't believe you are literally pulling a chicken steve here.
> But, I already have.
> 
> BTW, the very reason these gadgets even exist is because of the NEC demands.
> 
> Without the NEC insistence, no-one would manufacture them, as they are a compelled buy.
> 
> ?


And sorry but you are soooo wrong on this, Kenny Clamp was designed and forced on electricians by local yocals and manufacturers see this as another item to market and push the crap out of it to the NEC and inspectors. Think AFCI and you will fully see the light.

Develop a product and find a need.


----------



## HackWork

I'm sorry Brian, but telsa says "There is NO chance that you win on this one.".


----------



## MTW

If the NEC does change and require this device, I will declare it to be worse than toilet paper. At least toilet paper has value. The NEC is already on paper thin ice. It won't take much for me to lose total respect for it.


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> That probably explains the vast majority of hard rock from that time frame - hammered performers, hammered concertgoers = distorted memory of the past.


You hit the nail on the head there :biggrin:

Only thing thou... I really don't remember :no:


----------



## HackWork

chicken steve said:


> This concern now has a case # at that manufacturer
> 
> ~CS~


 @chicken steve, can you please tell us the case number and manufacturer?

Thanks.


----------



## overfused123

yes, for years I've installed the GEC through the small drain holes(i think that why they are there). and the GEC is bonded to the can through ground bar, that's why never been hit in inspection..........its bonded to the can.


----------



## HackWork

overfused123 said:


> yes, for years I've installed the GEC through the small drain holes(i think that why they are there). and the GEC is bonded to the can through ground bar, that's why never been hit in inspection..........its bonded to the can.


Those aren’t drain holes, 12 manufacturers told chicken steve that they are specifically for the GEC.


----------



## Arrow3030

overfused123 said:


> yes, for years I've installed the GEC through the small drain holes(i think that why they are there). and the GEC is bonded to the can through ground bar, that's why never been hit in inspection..........its bonded to the can.


The drain holes are usually in the back corners of the can. They're small and discrete. Nothing like the 5/16" pre punched hole that makes perfect sense to use for a GEC.


----------



## sbrn33

Arrow3030 said:


> The drain holes are usually in the back corners of the can. They're small and discrete. Nothing like the 5/16" pre punched hole that makes perfect sense to use for a GEC.


Those 5/16 holes are only there to facilitate the removal of a knockout for the Kenny clamp


----------



## brian john

sbrn33 said:


> Those 5/16 holes are only there to facilitate the removal of a knockout for the Kenny clamp


I invented a Brian clamp based on the kenny clamp but it utilizes the 5/16" hole and mounts with brass hardware on the exterior of the can. All I need to do is get the manufactures to include 2-10/32 holes on either side of the 5/16" hole for mounting the Brian Clamp.


----------



## MTW

Someone should invent the Chicken Steve clamp.


----------



## Arrow3030

sbrn33 said:


> Those 5/16 holes are only there to facilitate the removal of a knockout for the Kenny clamp


If I didn't think you were a girl and your name was Kenny I'd knock you out 5 out of 16 times.


----------



## macmikeman

emtnut said:


> You hit the nail on the head there :biggrin:
> 
> Only thing thou... I really don't remember :no:


My first time seeing Pink Floyd , I dropped acid. Horrifying although the music was insanely well done. It was just that Eugene and that Axe thing that made me loose it..........

Anyway caught em three more times while sober. Always a great show, very excellently performed. A complete contrast to that Led Zep concert I went to in Tampa where the riots broke out.


----------



## sbrn33

ElectricalArtist said:


> Alot of people use kenny clamps , plastic romex connector or metal romex connectors. Should any one of these not be used?


I wouldn't use a romex connector. Normally I just drill a small hole and run it through there. Some meter sockets have two small knockouts so then I use them. Saves me dragging a drill out. Alot of times I run a 1/2 inch pvc down to below grade just because I am awesome. Of course I bend a small box offset using my spring bender.


----------



## HackWork

sbrn33 said:


> I wouldn't use a romex connector. Normally I just drill a small hole and run it through there. Some meter sockets have two small knockouts so then I use them. Saves me dragging a drill out. Alot of times I run a 1/2 inch pvc down to below grade just because I am awesome. Of course I bend a small box offset using my spring bender.


Where do you attach the bonding block when you use PVC?

BTW, that is pretty gay.


----------



## drspec

I remember when I first started in the trade, I worked for my brother in law and he had us sleeve the GEC in 1/2" pvc. I guess it looked a little better than bare copper running down the house, but its not something I choose to do now.


----------



## splatz

sbrn33 said:


> Alot of times I run a 1/2 inch pvc down to below grade just because I am awesome. Of course I bend a small box offset using my spring bender.





drspec said:


> I remember when I first started in the trade, I worked for my brother in law and he had us sleeve the GEC in 1/2" pvc. I guess it looked a little better than bare copper running down the house, but its not something I choose to do now.


I am always up for little extra touches but I am not sure I'd do that, copper might be prettier than PVC. Sleeving the GEC in PVC might be like putting indoor-outdoor grass carpeting over hardwood floors.


----------



## B-Nabs

Sleeving the GEC in PVC is common around here to help deter copper theft. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## sbrn33

HackWork said:


> Where do you attach the bonding block when you use PVC?
> 
> BTW, that is pretty gay.


I don't use a bonding block as you think about one. I put a small ground bar kit on the side of the meter socket. Ussaly they are ones I take out of the siemens panels and I cut them into pieces.


----------



## Arrow3030

This thing is pretty fancy


----------



## HackWork

B-Nabs said:


> Sleeving the GEC in PVC is common around here to help deter copper theft.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


I would never run bar copper for that reason. Most people here just use black THHN so it looks like coax or phone wire.


----------



## splatz

Arrow3030 said:


> This thing is pretty fancy


Thats nothing


----------



## TGGT

splatz said:


> Thats nothing


Looks like a terminal block just for grounds. I approve.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------

