# temp port generator, which bonding jumper to remove...



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

hooking up in the fashion you described is non compliant, and dangerous to the lives of lineman. I see no point in discussing anything about it.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Zaped said:


> (( TEMPORARY HOOKUP OF PORTABLE GENNY AT DWELLING, WHICH BONDING JUMPER TO DISCONNECT ? ))
> 
> Portable generators for temporary power to dwellings such as during power outage after a storm, etc. My subject relates to that.
> 
> ...


Is this your way of asking "Can I do dis?"

Pete


----------



## 3xdad (Jan 25, 2011)

Zaped said:


> When ya hook up a port. generator with an interlock of course, why not remove the MBJ at the service instead of the generator?


fixed it for ya.:thumbsup:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Seems to me that if someone forgot to re-install the bond, there's a whole lot higher risk of someone getting injured from a totally unbonded equipment grounding system in a house, than there is from a missing portable generator bond.

That's why I'd chose the generator. Also, that's one hell of a "hypothetical" question.


----------



## Zaped (Jul 6, 2008)

*No, just wondering why....*



Pete m. said:


> Is this your way of asking "Can I do dis?"
> 
> Pete


No, just wondering why forum users always focus on the bonding jumper at the jenny only. But ok, there are concerns about removing the MBJ even just temporarily, e.g., losing one of the grounding electrodes (i.e., if the GEC were connected at the EGC bus instead of the neutral bus). I see that point. ( and of course backfeeding at dryer recep has a variety of potential pitfalls ).


----------



## Zaped (Jul 6, 2008)

*Brevity...*



3xdad said:


> fixed it for ya.:thumbsup:


Thanks. Brevity is the soul of a post? And gets more answers.


----------



## Zaped (Jul 6, 2008)

*Yep.*



Big John said:


> Seems to me that if someone forgot to re-install the bond, there's a whole lot higher risk of someone getting injured from a totally unbonded equipment grounding system in a house, than there is from a missing portable generator bond.
> 
> That's why I'd chose the generator. Also, that's one hell of a "hypothetical" question.


Well, yes. There's a reason though--to understand as many reasons as possible why things are done the way they are (and not the way they aren't.). Thanks for the cautionary note about the risk of 'someone forgetting to re-install the bond'. That is definintely an important point.


----------



## Bbsound (Dec 16, 2011)

Seems like it would be more work!!

Grounds and neutrals are almost always on the same bar (residential) and the bar is often bolted directly to the can. 
And, why depend on two twist lock recpts versus a solidly bonded electrical panel?

Basically, I don't even understand the point of this question.


----------



## rrolleston (Mar 6, 2012)

There is a very fine line between something working and being safe/legal.


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

In this screwed up hypothetical situation lets say you did remove the bonding jumper. What now? Are you going to drive ground rods and bond them to the portable?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

ceb58 said:


> In this screwed up hypothetical situation lets say you did remove the bonding jumper. What now? Are you going to drive ground rods and bond them to the portable?


FWIW... This guy is usually spot on. ^^^^

Pete


----------



## sparky250 (Aug 28, 2012)

So I have a thread going on over in the Canadian Code Forum, and I got to talk with a local inspector today. He basically said even though there is a potential of a parallel path between neutral conductor and bond conductor they would rather prefer leaving in both bonds and if one is removed there is a risk of the bond screw not being replaced. Also that the neutral to ground bond in a " portable" generator is not really grounded, but bonded to frame, any fault to neutral would go to the main systems earth ground.


----------



## Promethius (Jan 1, 2013)

There is no reason to remove the jumper in either. Just forget about it.


----------



## sprdave (Jan 12, 2012)

ceb58 said:


> In this screwed up hypothetical situation lets say you did remove the bonding jumper. What now? Are you going to drive ground rods and bond them to the portable?


The service ground would still be connected, no? Or you mean because of some potential voltage difference?



sparky250 said:


> So I have a thread going on over in the Canadian Code Forum, and I got to talk with a local inspector today. He basically said even though there is a potential of a parallel path between neutral conductor and bond conductor they would rather prefer leaving in both bonds and if one is removed there is a risk of the bond screw not being replaced. Also that the neutral to ground bond in a " portable" generator is not really grounded, but bonded to frame, any fault to neutral would go to the main systems earth ground.


So He basically said they prefer the safer illegal method :blink:

Not sure what you're saying about fault to neutral? With a short to neutral the fault current would return on the neutral to the generator. With a short to "ground", the fault would return on the bonding conductor to wherever it's bonded to neutral, then on the neutral to the generator. If there is no neutral bond, a short to "ground" has nowhere to go, which is a bigger problem (why the inspector prefers 2 bonds over none at all).




Promethius said:


> There is no reason to remove the jumper in either. Just forget about it.


Ya if you're going to hook up illegally, what's another deficiency....


----------

