# Poll: GEC through 1/4" hole - compliant or not?



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

was going to vote no because sometimes I drill a hole a bit larger than 1/4 inch. But now I use a kenny clamp for every grounding conductor whether it is a gec or not.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Which manufacturers would that be MT.....?

~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Which manufacturers would that be MT.....?
> 
> ~CS~



I'm going to use your tactic and not answer questions that are beneath me.


----------



## trentonmakes (Mar 21, 2017)

Im going with compliant!
At least according to the AHJ's throughout NJ it is.

Texting and Driving


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

I vote that the Bridgeport one I just
used is code compliant...so YES....

does this mean I'm now in a tribe?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

emtnut is fired from his management position.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

Compliant by the NEC and MFR but not compliant by my local POCO


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> Compliant by the NEC and MFR but not compliant by my local POCO


Our Poco doesn't allow the GEC in the meter pan at all, so we bring the GECs into the main panel, thru the small holes made for the purpose.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

electricalwiz said:


> Compliant by the NEC and MFR but not compliant by my local POCO


Can you show us that spec? I would love to see the POCO that does not go by the listing.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Our Poco doesn't allow the GEC in the meter pan at all, so we bring the GECs into the main panel, thru the small holes made for the purpose.


We have one POCO that required the pan to be grounded. so then we take the rod out of the panel and the water pipe to the panel.


----------



## MikeFL (Apr 16, 2016)

sbrn33 said:


> Can you show us that spec? I would love to see the POCO that does not go by the listing.


POCO is allowed to write their own rules. If they say no copper, then it's no copper.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> emtnut is fired from his management position.


Oops ... I thought I chose option #3 "MTW isn't a real electrician"

Maybe a Mod can get my vote back :biggrin:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm sorry, but you've ruined everything :sad:


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

The Eaton indoor panel I put in today had 1/4” holes in the top for drainage. Popped them all out just to be sure.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> Can you show us that spec? I would love to see the POCO that does not go by the listing.


I work with a few different POCO and none of them allow 
I work with the same POCO that Hack does


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

I voted yes. I'll drill my own hole too with no sweat.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

matt1124 said:


> The Eaton indoor panel I put in today had 1/4” holes in the top for drainage. Popped them all out just to be sure.


Ours drain out the side


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> Can you show us that spec? I would love to see the POCO that does not go by the listing.


Here in CT:



> *United Illuminating General Requirements 10.1*
> 
> M. Meter sockets can not be used as a grounding point. The grounding electrode conductor shall not be run through the meter socket and the grounding electrode conductor connection shall not be made within the meter provision.





> *Eversource 2016 Information & Requirements Section 8
> 
> *E. Grounding
> 1. The grounding electrode conductor connection shall be made at an
> ...


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

95% :thumbup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CTshockhazard said:


> Here in CT:


CT poco's are stupid.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

:vs_OMG:I voted violation, but then I also voted Hillary...


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> :vs_OMG:I voted violation, but then I also voted Hillary...


Why would you admit that? :vs_laugh:


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Just for the laughs. Besides it says other forum members can see how I voted anyway.


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

Compliant. No code section against it unless someone can show me otherwise.


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

MTW said:


> CT poco's are stupid.



:yes:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CTshockhazard said:


> :yes:


Requiring lever bypass for residential takes the cake for stupidity.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I'd say it was 100%. The two people who voted the wrong way admit to it not being serious.

Funny that Steve and HD13 don't have the stones to vote.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

If the mainstream media were to get ahold of this poll, they would state that the overwhelming majority of pollsters voted the clamp mandatory.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I'd say it was 100%. The two people who voted the wrong way admit to it not being serious.
> 
> Funny that Steve and HD13 don't have the stones to vote.


Well, steve isn't really on here that much, maybe he just hasn't seen it yet. HD just hasn't posted because his boyfriends house doesn't have internet. He will vote Monday morning when he gets to work.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Steve has twice as many posts per day as me, and I am a damn post whore.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

MTW said:


> 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.


i agree


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

hd13 said:


> i agree


I changed my mind. I'm entitled to do that. And not surprisingly, the poll results greatly bolster the fact that the NEC does not require these useless bonding devices.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Grand, perhaps you should change you sig line to portray yourself as an *official NEC member* as well MT

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Grand, perhaps you should change you sig line to portray yourself as an *official NEC member* as well MT
> 
> ~CS~


Does the NEC have members??? I thought it was electrical code...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

hd13 said:


> MTW said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Once again you don't realize that you are making yourself look bad and proving the other side's point.

This poll proves that his statement was correct, that a poll isn't needed to determine what the right way is, that everyone already knows and is on the same page, other than you and Steve.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Its illegal 
Article 312.5 
Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312.5(a) through (C) 
That covers cabinets that panel boards go into; cutout boxes and meter socket enclosures
Just bringing in the wire through a hole does not meet the requirements or exceptions of this article 

314.17 basically says the same thing about abrasion but is about device and pull boxes


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

These self proclaimed pro's are here to insist _opinion_ code Pedro, they won't entertain nor do they have the apparent _ability _to post/discuss actual NEC

Nice try 



~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Its illegal
> Article 312.5
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312.5(a) through (C)
> That covers cabinets that panel boards go into; cutout boxes and meter socket enclosures
> ...


This has already been refuted. I would suggest that you read it and educate yourself. Maybe we can find a code book in spanish for you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> These self proclaimed pro's


 Steve, it's not self proclamation. It's the state, federal government, the world, and the IAEI who affirm that I am a professional.



> are here to insist _opinion_ code Pedro, they won't entertain nor do they have the apparent _ability _to post/discuss actual NEC


 Wow, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.

There are literally hundreds of posts in this thread citing code that directly refutes what you said, but you are too chickensh1t to even acknowldge them, let alone attempt to refute them.

Your reverse psychology of accusing everyone else of doing exactly what you have done never gets you anywhere. Like I have told you dozens of times, everyone sees right thru you.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

HackWork said:


> emtnut is fired from his management position.


 middle management is for suckers anyway


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

lighterup said:


> middle management is for suckers anyway


You're fired too!


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

MTW said:


> Requiring lever bypass for residential takes the cake for stupidity.


Come now, we can be forcing people to reset their clocks _every_ time the meter is pulled.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CTshockhazard said:


> Come now, we can be forcing people to reset their clocks _every_ time the meter is pulled.


Good point, I mean, they change the meters every 5 years or so? That is a major inconvenience. I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> These self proclaimed pro's are here to insist _opinion_ code Pedro, they won't entertain nor do they have the apparent _ability _to post/discuss actual NEC
> 
> Nice try


If this forum is so bad and we're all a bunch of "dregs", why are you still here? Why do you socialize with people you hate and are beneath you? What does that say about you that you can't divorce yourself from a place you despise? It shows a lack of character, if nothing else.


----------



## Helmut (May 7, 2014)

What happens if the 1/2" KO comes out instead of the 1/4" one, and I run the GEC through that hole?

Compliant?


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

Helmut said:


> What happens if the 1/2" KO comes out instead of the 1/4" one, and I run the GEC through that hole?
> 
> Compliant?


I hope you are kidding but in case you aren't....

You aren't allowed to leave any space larger than a 1/4" open in any enclosure.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Simpson Electric said:


> You aren't allowed to leave any space larger than a 1/4" open in any enclosure.


Good one....

I vaguely recall some code ref

care to help me out?

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Good one....
> 
> I vaguely recall some code ref
> 
> ...


No one answer Steve.

He is clearly fishing, grasping for anything that could save him. But he has ignored all the times that we have explained this to him.


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> simpson electric said:
> 
> 
> > you aren't allowed to leave any space larger than a 1/4" open in any enclosure.
> ...


110.12(a)


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Simpson Electric said:


> 110.12(a)


Nope, it's not an _unused opening_.

And now you just fell into Steve's trap. 

Now he is going to gloat as if he won the whole debate.


----------



## Helmut (May 7, 2014)

Simpson Electric said:


> I hope you are kidding but in case you aren't....
> 
> You aren't allowed to leave any space larger than a 1/4" open in any enclosure.


Oh, so if that happens, I would need to wrap a bunch of tape around the GEC where it enters the KO, and that would make it compliant?

Is just bending the KO out a smidge to get the GEC in, and then bending it back against the GEC compliant, but if the KO falls out, I'm hosed?


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

Helmut said:


> Simpson Electric said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you are kidding but in case you aren't....
> ...


Just use the 1/4" ko.... 

Why would you use a 1/2" ko?


----------



## Helmut (May 7, 2014)

Simpson Electric said:


> Just use the 1/4" ko....
> 
> Why would you use a 1/2" ko?


There ain't one.

GEC won't fit in 1/4" hole. ( water pipe bond)


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

Helmut said:


> Simpson Electric said:
> 
> 
> > Just use the 1/4" ko....
> ...


What kind of wire?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Not everything one runs a GEC into *has* a 1/4" , or for that matter a 1/2" hole.

That would be every form of service rated equipment , too long to list, _not_ sorry....

For those of you who will actually follow the NEC, _codes and listings_ that follow are applicable

Those of you who merely exist to express your _opinion _insisting it code, can simply increase your volume to whatever obnoxious volumes you wish

It _won't _matter....

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Not everything one runs a GEC into *has* a 1/4" , or for that matter a 1/2" hole.
> 
> That would be every form of service rated equipment , too long to list, _not_ sorry....
> 
> ...


 Whether something has a hole or not does not matter. If it has a small hole listed to run the GEC thru it, then fine. If it doesn't have the hole, that's fine too. THe hole is a sideways step that you took to confuse the main issue: That the GEC does not have to be bonded as it enters a panel or meter.

The only thing that does matter is that you can't cite a single code, listing, or anything else to support your side of it. 

We have substantiated the fact that a GEC does NOT have to be bonded as it enter a panel or meter. We have proved it with code and listing data that you won't respond to.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

What color is the sky in your universe lad?
:vs_laugh:
~CS~


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> What color is the sky in your universe lad?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wha??


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> What color is the sky in your universe lad?
> :vs_laugh:
> ~CS~


Steve, the color of the sky to me is the same as what everyone else thinks it is.

It is *you* who is the odd man out... as usual.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Not everything one runs a GEC into *has* a 1/4" , or for that matter a 1/2" hole.
> 
> That would be every form of service rated equipment , too long to list, _not_ sorry....
> 
> ...


I'm going to ask you a simple question. What purpose does the 1/4" hole serve? Forget about meters, let's talk about just a simple indoor load center.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> I'm going to ask you a simple question. What purpose does the 1/4" hole serve? Forget about meters, let's talk about just a simple indoor load center.


Simple answer MT

It can serve any purpose it is *LISTED* for

And here is your NEC code to back it up>>

Note the '11 change (_my bold_) aka Mr MHolt, addressing *GEC's*



> *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:
> ...



_your welcome!_
:vs_cool:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Simple answer MT
> 
> It can serve any purpose it is *LISTED* for
> 
> ~CS~


Great. The manufacturers list it for the GEC. So that's settled. You are finished.

The funniest part about this is how YOU were the one who wanted to contact the manufacturers, and did so. But you only contacted a sales rep, and you are unwilling to ask him to clarify now that we contacted the actual engineering team to confirm that he was wrong. We also have other manufacturers whose products are listed for the GEC to exit the 5/16" hole.

But you refuse to recognize the exact proof that was your idea to get, simply because it doesn't support your stupid argument. Do you not see how bad that makes you look? A 5 year old acts less childish.

But this whole thing doesn't matter. Who cares about the little hole? You are only using the hole as a last ditch effort to get away from the fact that there is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it exits a panel or meter. A simple fact that you can't refute.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> And here is your NEC code to back it up>>
> 
> Note the '11 change (_my bold_) aka Mr MHolt, addressing *GEC's*
> 
> ...


I addressed the "other listed means" thing weeks ago. You simply ignored it. Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It proved you wrong no matter how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALA" like a child who doesn't want to hear something.

Done:









You couldn't ask for better proof of a manufacturer's listing. But of course chicken steve will ignore it or find some other way to try and work around it, while everyone laughs at him...


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

This is why hose monkeys shouldn't do electrical work.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Simple answer MT
> 
> It can serve any purpose it is *LISTED* for
> 
> And here is your NEC code to back it up>>


Where is the listing for the regular 1/2, 3/4, and concentric knockouts? Using your faulty logic, I can't use any of those knockouts because they are not listed for every single wiring method and connector under the sun. 



> Note the '11 change (_my bold_) aka Mr MHolt, addressing *GEC's*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, it was pointed out to you at least 10 times already that you misapplied that code section. It's not relevant to the discussion about the 1/4" hole whatsoever. You failed to correctly use Charlie's Rules for interpreting the NEC. It simply does not say what you want it to say. 

Seriously, what happened to you? You didn't used to be like this.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*GEC's* were included in 250.8 as an* '2011* update

So all you two have is OLD pre-_'code'_ info

:vs_cool:

thx

~CS~


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

I going to step in for a minuite due it been good discussion but let me speak from my part.,

I have dealt with Americian , European , Japan verison of load centre aka breaker box., etc., 

Just keep in your mind I will not mention too much about meter socket itself due some POCO do not allow GEC in there.

for 1/4 or 5/16" KO opening that is common and I have done that for many years with no side effect even thru I am aware of Kenny clamp but it is NOT mantory to use it. ( unless it is spec'ed in the bid or punchlist )

so for my option it is legit to run GEC thru the 1/4 or 5/16" KO in all the areas where I work. 

GEC thru 1/2" KO it can be done but it is sloppy that all. (unless it is a big arse GEC then I can understand it )


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> *GEC's* were included in 250.8 as an* '2011* update
> 
> So all you two have is OLD pre-_'code'_ info
> 
> ...


Why don't you try to refute all the information that we posted instead of finding one tiny little bit to respond to because you think you can "get us" on it (but never do)?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> *GEC's* were included in 250.8 as an* '2011* update
> 
> So all you two have is OLD pre-_'code'_ info
> 
> ...


Even with the update, it still doesn't apply.

Seriously, how dense are you?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Why don't you try to refute all the information that we posted instead of finding one tiny little bit to respond to because you think you can "get us" on it (but never do)?


What more do you _need_ then Hax?

FWIW< GEC's where NOt in the *'08* /250.8

GEC's made their debut in the *'11* / 250.8 >>>>








Manufactures followed suit , Bridgeport, Arlington , Kenny , _(that i'm aware of, there may be others)_

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> Even with the update, it still doesn't apply.
> 
> Seriously, how dense are you?


Explain how a code update _doesn't apply_ then....

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> What more do you _need_ then Hax?
> 
> FWIW< GEC's where NOt in the *'08* /250.8
> 
> ...


I never said anything about 250.8 and honestly don't care about it. You are the only person here talking about it, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Since you have such a small attention span, let me explain it for you one more time:

FACT: There is no requirement to bond the GEC as it enters a panel or meter.

FACT: The small holes in panels and meters can compliantly be used to bring the GEC into. 

We have proven those facts over and over, even using your own suggested methods, such as contacting the manufacturers and asking Charlie Trout.

If you can refute either of those facts, please do so. Until then, admit you are dead wrong and just being a jerk.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Explain how a code update _doesn't apply_ then....
> 
> ~CS~


It doesn't apply because it's not relevant. It's out of context to the discussion. Look, I know you think you knocked this out of the park, but you are in the distinct minority here. If this was as cut and dry as you think, the commentary and poll would have skewed in your direction. But it did not. Case closed.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> If you can refute either of those facts, please do so. Until then, admit you are dead wrong and just being a jerk.


He's getting "revenge" on us, didn't know know that?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I stood up that new temp pole today. I ran my gec thru the little bitty hole. It felt really good when I did that.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> I stood up that new temp pole today. I ran my gec thru the little bitty hole. It felt really good when I did that.


I hope you can sleep at night knowing you have a potential bomb sitting there if lightning strikes. That sheet metal will literally choke 1 million volts from making its way through.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

MTW said:


> I hope you can sleep at night knowing you have a potential bomb sitting there if lightning strikes. That sheet metal will literally choke 1 million volts from making its way through.


I'm hoping for a lightning strike. That would be a nice change order. My contract stipulates we are not responsible for any acts of God . The more damage the better.......


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This has already been refuted. I would suggest that you read it and educate yourself. Maybe we can find a code book in spanish for you.


Refuted how? The GEC is a conductor and you have to protect it from abrasion. To say otherwise is plain stupidity. You act like the GEC is some magical wire that doesn't need to follow the rules of any other conductor and you're wrong


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

How long does Boston Pedro think it might take a #4 bare copper secured by a romex cable within lets say 8 inches of entry into an ''enclosure" which holds a panel board nyuck, nyuck, and is terminated onto the neutral buss inside the panel, to degrade from abrasion? . I'll give it a guess for myself- 150 years. 

If it were a #6 , then of course it will only last 140 years before it becomes slightly worn. 

How long does it take a Boston member of the IBEW to run a pipe to protect a gec from abrasion? Well if they had to run it all by themselves it would also take around 150 years. With a crew of 5 they might , might get er in a day. Maybe.


----------



## Simpson Electric (May 22, 2012)

bostonPedro said:


> Refuted how? The GEC is a conductor and you have to protect it from abrasion. To say otherwise is plain stupidity. You act like the GEC is some magical wire that doesn't need to follow the rules of any other conductor and you're wrong


So if I run a solid #4 copper through a 5/16” hole that is going to cause abrasion?


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> How long does Boston Pedro think it might take a #4 bare copper secured by a romex cable within lets say 8 inches of entry into an ''enclosure" which holds a panel board nyuck, nyuck, and is terminated onto the neutral buss inside the panel, to degrade from abrasion? . I'll give it a guess for myself- 150 years.
> 
> If it were a #6 , then of course it will only last 140 years before it becomes slightly worn.
> 
> How long does it take a Boston member of the IBEW to run a pipe to protect a gec from abrasion? Well if they had to run it all by themselves it would also take around 150 years. With a crew of 5 they might , might get er in a day. Maybe.


I'd say the terminal block would degrade long before the copper GEC.
as a matter of fact...between POCo and the AHJ , out here , the way
they make us secure temp poles to the ground , it wouldn't surprise
me if they're alll that's left standing after a nuclear holocaust


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Refuted how? The GEC is a conductor and you have to protect it from abrasion.


 No, you don't. What would you be protecting if there is no insulation? Why wouldn't you want it to touch, since it's bonded anyway?



> To say otherwise is plain stupidity.


 Here's the problem with your statement. You just called *everyone* except for you, chicken steve, and maybe HD13 stupid. HD13 hasn't posted in a while so I believe he might have seen where he is wrong, unlike you and Steve.

Do you really think that all the other people that have discussed this over the last 2 decades are stupid, and you and steve are smart?

My rule of thumb is never be in a group with chicken steve. If I am, I know that I am definitely wrong.



> You act like the GEC is some magical wire that doesn't need to follow the rules of any other conductor and you're wrong


Not magical, just very, very different. And the rules that protect other wires from abrading their insulation, or that require them from being a certain depth in the ground, etc. don't apply to the GEC.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Refuted how? The GEC is a conductor and you have to protect it from abrasion. *To say otherwise is plain stupidity.* You act like the GEC is some magical wire that doesn't need to follow the rules of any other conductor and you're wrong


Actually, it’s common sense.

Are you saying a bare conductor would be damaged? 

The code is to protect the conductor from coming in contact with the enclosure if the INSULATION gets compromised from abrasion.

Plain stupidity alright

ETA. Already answered. Didn’t see your post hack.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Stevie. you do know that 250.8 is talking about terminations right? Do they not teach you that in the IAEI? It says nothing about bringing it into an enclosure.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

sbrn33 said:


> Stevie. you do know that 250.8 is talking about terminations right? Do they not teach you that in the IAEI? It says nothing about bringing it into an enclosure.



That was mentioned at least 20 times between this forum and Holt's. I told him that it simply does not say what he thinks it says, to no avail. Taking a very simple and basic code section out of context and trying to apply it to requiring a "kenny clamp" is extremely irresponsible and is a mistake that rookie electricians make.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

You can't run copper wire in a house because 984.450(E) says so. UL also doesn't list it for use in a house. And the Vermont OSHA won't allow people to install it.

No matter what you say, and how many times you prove me wrong, I will still stand by this.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> You can't run copper wire in a house because 984.450(E) says so. UL also doesn't list it for use in a house. And the Vermont OSHA won't allow people to install it.


I heard they will come in the house if they see your truck outside. They hand out heavy fines if you are working on an appliance without a disconnect in sight.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

And that's why subpanels require main breakers.

Anyways, did I forget to press send on that last PM, or are you just ignoring me?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MTW said:


> That was mentioned at least 20 times between this forum and Holt's. I told him that it simply does not say what he thinks it says, to no avail. Taking a very simple and basic code section out of context and trying to apply it to requiring a "kenny clamp" is extremely irresponsible and is a mistake that rookie electricians make.


stevie is IAEI certified. I will take his word for it. This is done. kenny clamps for everyone. It is the law.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

emtnut said:


> Ours drain out the side


I had a drainage problem, Penicillin cured that issue.


----------



## Helmut (May 7, 2014)

HackWork said:


> No, you don't. What would you be protecting if there is no insulation? Why wouldn't you want it to touch, since it's bonded anyway?


Any code reference for 2 dissimilar metals in an electrical installation requiring special care?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> I had a drainage problem, Penicillin cured that issue.


My problem was in the back. (My rear vagina).


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

My nose drips when it's really cold out ... but my 70's po rnstache catches it:laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

So deducting the two troll votes, I'd say that anyone who said it's a violation got smashed in the face.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

MTW said:


> So deducting the two troll votes, I'd say that anyone who said it's a violation got smashed in the face.


Mine wasn't a troll vote :vs_mad:

I swear I hit the option that said some guy named Peter D wasn't a real electrician :help:


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

I did a service change today.... I ran the wire through the 1/4" hole. I have another one to do next week.... I'll do it again!


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

I voted violation because I just like to watch the world burn...


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> Actually, it’s common sense.
> 
> Are you saying a bare conductor would be damaged?
> 
> ...


Show me the code reference stating it as FACT not what you think is commonsense. Lots of things are commonsense yet we use tamper proof outlets. 
BTW where was it answered? Are you referring to the picture of a freaking pull box and using that for cabinets?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Show me the code reference stating it as FACT not what you think is commonsense. Lots of things are commonsense yet we use tamper proof outlets


As I stated twice in this very thread, tamper resistant outlets were put into code because there were thousands of incidences per year of children getting hurt by sticking something into an outlet. THAT is substantiation for a code change.

No one has been able to show a single instance of this catastrophic event that you say could occur caused by a GEC entering a panel/meter without being bonded, and/or by a GEC entering thru the hole made for that purpose.

If it were a real issue, you would be able to cite thousands of instances of it occurring, but you can't even show us just one.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This has already been refuted. I would suggest that you read it and educate yourself. Maybe we can find a code book in spanish for you.


You havent refuted anything. You posted a pic of a pull box. 
When are pull boxes and cabinets that panel boards go into the same? 
Answer-they are not which is why they are in seperate articles 
Try again.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Show me the code reference stating it as FACT not what you think is commonsense. Lots of things are commonsense yet we use tamper proof outlets.
> BTW where was it answered? Are you referring to the picture of a freaking pull box and using that for cabinets?


Here ya go. :vs_laugh:

2018 CEC 12-3022. Entrance of cables into boxes, cabinets, and fittings

(1) Where cables pass through the walls of boxes, cabinets, or fittings, provision shall be made to
(A) protect the INSULATION on the conductors from damage


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> You havent refuted anything. You posted a pic of a pull box.
> When are pull boxes and cabinets that panel boards go into the same?
> Answer-they are not which is why they are in seperate articles
> Try again.


I don't know what you just said. 

BTW, do you mind if I call you Stinky Pete?


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> How long does Boston Pedro think it might take a #4 bare copper secured by a romex cable within lets say 8 inches of entry into an ''enclosure" which holds a panel board nyuck, nyuck, and is terminated onto the neutral buss inside the panel, to degrade from abrasion? . I'll give it a guess for myself- 150 years.
> 
> If it were a #6 , then of course it will only last 140 years before it becomes slightly worn.
> 
> How long does it take a Boston member of the IBEW to run a pipe to protect a gec from abrasion? Well if they had to run it all by themselves it would also take around 150 years. With a crew of 5 they might , might get er in a day. Maybe.


Show the code reference or stfu? Its really that simple. 
I gather that you are jealous of union members simply because they make more than you nyuck nyuck or maybe you were too stupid to pass the entrance exam nyuck nyuck because I never mentioned unions at all
How long would it take for a Romex wire ran through a metal stud to finally short nyuck nyuck YET you have to protect it with a grommet dont you nyuck nyuck 

Show the code refence nyuck nyuck oh thats right you cant nyuck nyuck so all you have is bullcrap


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

That was a reference to commonsense. 
I get what you are saying yet the code is full of things because people lack commonsense. 
I could also point to Article 250 and how it talks about protecting the GEC from corrosion. Well dissimilar metals corrode copper and yet we can run it in conduit bare which is a different metal BUT its listed for that use in the code BUT no where do I see it listed for use in cabinets entering bare. 
The code doesn't differentiate between bare and insulated as far as abrasion although it could but yet they have not so until then I will say its illegal


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> Here ya go. :vs_laugh:
> 
> 2018 CEC 12-3022. Entrance of cables into boxes, cabinets, and fittings
> 
> ...


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> I don't know what you just said.
> 
> BTW, do you mind if I call you Stinky Pete?


Call me Sir 

:vs_cool: 

BTW I think you know the pic I referenced.....the Holt pic that shows a pull box that you posted


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> eddy current said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go. :vs_laugh:
> ...


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Also as a point in commonsense. I have seen the GEC run and stapled on plywood and it looked great but I guess someone forgot to tell the homeowner that you shouldn't hang clamps from it or hang your wrapped up extension cords from it either.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> bostonPedro said:
> 
> 
> > Because wires act differently on this side of the border?
> ...


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> eddy current said:
> 
> 
> > I dont need to. I am simply stating that in your country they addressed it and in mine they did not.
> ...


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> bostonPedro said:
> 
> 
> > And then there is common sense. Insulation MUST be protected from abrasion because if not, there could be a short. Bare wire.......not an issue
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

This Mexican screws up quotes the same way that chicken Steve does. 

Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This Mexican screws up quotes the same way that chicken Steve does.
> 
> Coincidence? I think not.


Yes I am also Chicken Man. Damn dude loosen up that tin foil hat


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

bostonPedro said:


> Show the code reference or stfu? Its really that simple.



*110.28* Enclosure Types

*250.8* Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment 
*
250.4(A)(1) *Electrical systems 
*
250.64(B)* Securing and Protection from Physical Damage

*250.64(E)* Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors

*300.15* Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings 

*312.5 *Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures.


:vs_cool:
~CS~


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I told you Pedro that the code book is written by a bunch of old drunks in Manhattan. And one guy with too much time on his hands who is a moderator at some electrical forums. They are responsible for all your confusion on how much code matters when it don't matter. The people that make the "cabinets" that house the "panels" inside them put a ****ing 1/4" hole there for you to run a gec bare or insulated thru and they supply a nice busbar with little screw holes you put the wire into and lug it nice and tight. Nicer and tighter than the stupid foot pounds amount on the label by the way since that won't hold on for more than a week. Thats what. By the way, the only guy in your union who makes as much money as me is the president of the union, not you . Not even close.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Yes I am also Chicken Man. Damn dude loosen up that tin foil hat


When you have 3 people who are saying completely crazy things that go against everyone else in the entire community who has discussed it over the last 2 decades, it truly starts to look like one person.

And to be clear, I am not talking about just this forum, I am talking about every forum, club, union, organization, etc.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> *110.28* Enclosure Types
> 
> *250.8* Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment
> *
> ...


And not a single one of those requires you to bond a GEC as it enter/exits a panel/meter pan. Nor does any one of those prohibit a GEC from entering/exiting a panel/meterpan via the small hole that the manufacturer installed for that exact reason.

No matter how many times you post that same drivel, it's not going to change.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> I told you Pedro that the code book is written by a bunch of old drunks in Manhattan. And one guy with too much time on his hands who is a moderator at some electrical forums. They are responsible for all your confusion on how much code matters when it don't matter. The people that make the "cabinets" that house the "panels" inside them put a ****ing 1/4" hole there for you to run a gec bare or insulated thru and they supply a nice busbar with little screw holes you put the wire into and lug it nice and tight. Nicer and tighter than the stupid foot pounds amount on the label by the way since that won't hold on for more than a week. Thats what. By the way, the only guy in your union who makes as much money as me is the president of the union, not you . Not even close.


Yes and manufacturers also put holes in outlets to stab wires into because making a hook and putting it on in the right direction was so mind numbing too bad the early versions and even now some are still pieces of **** 
You complain about the code but are licking the taint of manufactures who put a little hole in the panel and who basically write the code at this point 

And fwiw I never mentioned being in a union. And I am sure your loaded. Everyone on the internet is rich and good looking also.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

write..........


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> Yes and manufacturers also put holes in outlets to stab wires into because making a hook and putting it on in the right direction was so mind numbing too bad the early versions and even some are still pieces of ****
> You complain about the code but are licking the taint of manufactures who put a little hole in the panel and who basically right the code at this point
> 
> And fwiw I never mentioned being in a union. And I am sure your loaded. Everyone on the internet is rich and good looking also.


I look like a monkey's asshole. This is why I have such a crush on Cricket........


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> And I am sure your loaded. Everyone on the internet is rich and good looking also.


Mikey can't even afford an extra 2' of height in his van.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> When you have 3 people who are saying completely crazy things that go against everyone else in the entire community who has discussed it over the last 2 decades, it truly starts to look like one person.
> 
> And to be clear, I am not talking about just this forum, I am talking about every forum, club, union, organization, etc.


If they have been discussing it for 2 decades then dont you think that MAYBE just maybe they should address it and move on to some other nonsensical discussion. The fact they are even discussing and for 2 decades as you stated it shows it needs clarification. 
NO, lets not clarify things though. Those very people you are referencing are the problem. They would rather discuss and blow hot air then make a clarification because they need to feel important when all they really are is blowhards who should stfu and make a clarification


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> write..........[/QUOTE
> fixed


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> If they have been discussing it for 2 decades then dont you think that MAYBE just maybe they should address it and move on to some other nonsensical discussion.


They HAVE addressed it. The code is clear, no one questions it, other than (literally) 3 people :vs_laugh:




> The fact they are even discussing and for 2 decades as you stated it shows it needs clarification.


 All codes are discussed, especially when new products come out and bastardize things.



> NO, lets not clarify things though.


 Again, as I discussed in detail, there are FAR greater things that need to be clarified first. Out of hundreds of thousands of electrician and similar people in North America, 3 people not understanding something doesn't even register.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> They HAVE addressed it. The code is clear, no one questions it, other than (literally) 3 people :vs_laugh:
> 
> 
> All codes are discussed, especially when new products come out and bastardize things.
> ...


And yet you cant point to a single code article in your favor whereas I have already pointed out 2 involving abrasion and corrosion BUT because the manufactures put a teeny tiny hole in the panel, its ok do. Hell lets run a GEC though a 2 inch knockout those are available on panels as well. 

You discussed nothing in detail 

Is this little hole listed by the UL or can I put the GEC through the 2 inch knockout also. After all it would be even easier if the hole was larger. 


Ummm, you are the very person who stated they have been discussing this issue for 2 decades. I already know thats a lie because the hole hasn't been around that long. So your a liar or are a person who feels the need to exaggerate. From your nonsense about about everyone in North America I see you like to exaggerate. 

Either its in the code or its not. It doesnt matter what the manufactures say....they arent the code 

You use the hole because youre lazy. Its the same as people who back stab devices. You take the easy way out but only this time its not in the code


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> And yet you cant point to a single code article in your favor whereas I have already pointed out 2 involving abrasion and corrosion BUT because the manufactures put a teeny tiny hole in the panel, its ok do. Hell lets run a GEC though a 2 inch knockout those are available on panels as well.
> 
> You discussed nothing in detail
> 
> ...



Horse crap. I been in the trade for over forty. The hole was always there and I almost always use it. Sometimes I run pvc and there is no abrasion protection for the oversize pvc terminal adaptor , even if a bushing is screwed on, the wire could flop around like a chicken except it doesn't and therefore the code doesn't really mean gec when it says to protect single conductors from abrasion. It means the knob and tube kind of conductors is exactly what kind of single conductors it is talking about and you took your reference out of context.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> Horse crap. I been in the trade for over forty. The hole was always there and I almost always use it. Sometimes I run pvc and there is no abrasion protection for the oversize pvc terminal adaptor , even if a bushing is screwed on, the wire could flop around like a chicken except it doesn't and therefore the code doesn't really mean gec when it says to protect single conductors from abrasion. It means the knob and tube kind of conductors is exactly what kind of single conductors it is talking about and you took your reference out of context.


BULL. 

The hole hasnt been around for 40 years. I have done lots of upgrades and old panels dont have it. Some new panels dont even have the "hole"
Another exaggerator


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> BULL.
> 
> The hole hasnt been around for 40 years. I have done lots of upgrades and old panels dont have it. Some new panels dont even have the "hole"
> Another exaggerator


Now the gloves come off. You are so wrong.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> Now the gloves come off. You are so wrong.


:vs_laugh:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

bostonPedro said:


> BULL.
> 
> The hole hasnt been around for 40 years. I have done lots of upgrades and old panels dont have it. Some new panels dont even have the "hole"
> Another exaggerator


Panels, switchgear, troughers , meters according to 110.28 would have to have an exclusive hole _'listed'_ for GEC entry per 250.8A8 , GEC's were introduced to 250.8 in the '11 cycle.....




> *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:
> ...


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> I told you Pedro that the code book is written by a bunch of old drunks in Manhattan. And one guy with too much time on his hands who is a moderator at some electrical forums. .


Yes well, they're always looking for recruits :vs_laugh:~CS~:biggrin:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Number of times Pedro posts = number of times steve tugs one off.........


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> And yet you cant point to a single code article in your favor


Exactly. That's the way code works. I don't have to prove that there isn't a code prohibiting something. The onus is on you to cite us the code prohibiting it, which you simple can't do.

You have just arrived in HaxsSh1tList, enjoy your stay.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I rest my case.....~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> I rest my case.....~CS~


Cool, so you admit that you can't cite a single code requiring the bonding of a GEC as it enters a panel nor could you cite a code prohibiting the GEC from entering the small hole. Thanks for playing.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Exactly. That's the way code works. I don't have to prove that there isn't a code prohibiting something. The onus is on you to cite us the code prohibiting it, which you simple can't do.
> 
> You have just arrived in HaxsSh1tList, enjoy your stay.


Except I listed 2 references that actually do dispute it so there is that. As for being on anyone's ****list, who cares......just writing that implies that you are full of yourself


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Except I listed 2 references that actually do dispute it


No, you have not.

There has not been ANY code posted in this thread that requires you to bond the GEC as it enters/exits a panel/meter pan nor has there been any code posted that prohibits you from running the GEC thru the hole that manufacturers put in their panels and have them listed for use with the GEC running thru said hole.

You can keep denying it, but no one believes you.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

macmikeman said:


> Number of times Pedro posts = number of times steve tugs one off.........



:vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

You like to edit your posts to sneak things in, I noticed that HD13 does that all the time too. Hmmmm.


Your edit:


bostonPedro said:


> As for being on anyone's ****list, who cares......just writing that implies that you are full of yourself


I am without a doubt the greatest electrician who ever make this post right now.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> No, you have not.
> 
> There has not been ANY code posted in this thread that requires you to bond the GEC as it enters/exits a panel/meter pan nor has there been any code posted that prohibits you from running the GEC thru the hole that manufacturers put in their panels and have them listed for use with the GEC running thru said hole.
> 
> You can keep denying it, but no one believes you.


First off I never mentioned bonding 
OK-now you added the listed part....about time 
Thats included in the "other" as chicken man posted BUT what happens when people start just drilling a hole into the cabinet or meter because the listed hole is in a ****ty spot. Thats what is happening now and that hole isnt listed nor should the listed hole be listed because its just an effing hole and all because people are too lazy to find another means or because the code panels are full of blowhards. 

Think about it for a sec. We have manufacturers listing holes now. Its ridiculous.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> You like to edit your posts to sneak things in, I noticed that HD13 does that all the time too. Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> Your edit:
> ...


Wrong again. I am the greatest and you cant dispute with any code reference so take that :biggrin:


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

I hope I still have some organic popcorn left to go with my... :vs_wine:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> First off I never mentioned bonding


 That's what this whole thing is about.


> OK-now you added the listed part....about time


 I have spoken about the listed part since the very beginning, well before you showed up and dumbed down the thread. I posted evidence from manufacturers that their products are listed for use with the GEC thru the small hole that they put there for that purpose.



> Thats included in the "other" as chicken man posted BUT what happens when people start just drilling a hole into the cabinet or meter because the listed hole is in a ****ty spot.


 I have never commented on that nor do I care to now. "What if's" don't apply to this discussion. What if you actually understood code? Then I wouldn't have to take so much time to educate you.



> Thats what is happening now and that hole isnt listed


 It most certainly is, as I have proven. 



> Think about it for a sec. We have manufacturers listing holes now. Its ridiculous.


 No, we have manufacturers listing their products to be used in a certain way.

You are just as ignorant of this system as steve and HD13.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Who is bostonPedro? He's clearly a troll account for someone. I have a few ideas, but none of them have that bad of an understanding of code.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

And you actually admitted in other posts as have others that they have drilled a hole and ran a GEC through it thus making your installation illegal. 
So much for following the code. You already fell into the trap of laziness and opened yourself up to a lawsuit with your illegal installation and all because you and others are too lazy to find another means. 
The fact you dont see manufactures listing of a hole as ridiculous speaks volumes and now people think any old hole they drill can used is the problem. We should not be using holes listed or not. 
Knowledge is power or so they say but thats wrong because applied knowledge is power and you and many others now feel comfortable drilling a hole and running the GEC through it and you have the balls to speak about the code. You mean the same code that you already admitted to violating. What a joke you are


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

When I drill a hole in a cabinet, I use the same drill bit the manufacturer uses :biggrin: 

I learned early on that a 'hole is a hole' :devil3:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> And you actually admitted in other posts as have others that they have drilled a hole and ran a GEC through it thus making your installation illegal.


 We have all spoken about performing electrical installations that weren't code compliant, so what?

That doesn't change the facts that I have spelled out 57 times now.



> So much for following the code. You already fell into the trap of laziness and opened yourself up to a lawsuit with your illegal installation and all because you and others are too lazy to find another means.
> The fact you dont see manufactures listing of a hole as ridiculous speaks volumes and now people think any old hole they drill can used is the problem. We should not be using holes listed or not.
> Knowledge is power or so they say but thats wrong because applied knowledge is power and you and many others now feel comfortable drilling a hole and running the GEC through it and you have the balls to speak about the code. You mean the same code that you already admitted to violating. What a joke you are


You are a gaping asshole. I'm serious, there is a picture of you on the front page of AssCave.com.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

emtnut said:


> When I drill a hole in a cabinet, I use the same drill bit the manufacturer uses :biggrin:
> 
> *I learned early on that a 'hole is a hole'* :devil3:


So you've done time too, huh? :surprise:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Who is bostonPedro? He's clearly a troll account for someone. I have a few ideas, but none of them have that bad of an understanding of code.



Am I a troll account or are you paranoid :devil3:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> We have all spoken about performing electrical installations that weren't code compliant, so what?
> 
> That doesn't change the facts that I have spelled out 57 times now.
> 
> ...


Really sad


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> We have all spoken about performing electrical installations that weren't code compliant, so what?
> 
> That doesn't change the facts that I have spelled out 57 times now.
> 
> ...




You spelled out nothing at all actually until you wrote listed. Seeing how your dumb ass already admitted to drilling a hole how is one to know wtf you are referencing 
As for your insult 
Meh, just proves I own you. 
Thats right, you are officially my little beetch boy


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

bostonPedro said:


> You spelled out nothing at all actually until you wrote listed. Seeing how your dumb ass already admitted to drilling a hole how is one to know wtf you are referencing
> As for your insult
> Meh, just proves I own you.
> Thats right, you are officially my little beetch boy


Be honest ... do you stock Kenny clamps ??? :vs_laugh:

I never even heard of them before these threads on it !


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

emtnut said:


> Be honest ... do you stock Kenny clamps ??? :vs_laugh:
> 
> I never even heard of them before these threads on it !


shhhh, I am the inspector who invented them
:biggrin:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> And you actually admitted in other posts as have others that they have drilled a hole and ran a GEC through it thus making your installation illegal.
> So much for following the code. You already fell into the trap of laziness and opened yourself up to a lawsuit with your illegal installation and all because you and others are too lazy to find another means.
> The fact you dont see manufactures listing of a hole as ridiculous speaks volumes and now people think any old hole they drill can used is the problem. We should not be using holes listed or not.
> Knowledge is power or so they say but thats wrong because applied knowledge is power and you and many others now feel comfortable drilling a hole and running the GEC through it and you have the balls to speak about the code. You mean the same code that you already admitted to violating. What a joke you are


Nice troll post. I certainly don't think you believe a word of anything you wrote in this thread, your trolling is as obvious as the sun in the sky.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce you to: Get ready for it......: 007





It's been a while......


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce you to: Get ready for it......: 007
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He wouldn't dare speak to me that way. 

He also wouldn't be this lame.

I'm telling you, it's chicken steve. Not only does he mess up quoting people the same way, but he is the only other person to use the word "beetch". 

See: http://www.electriciantalk.com/f33/lets-legalize-73068/#post1355300
And: http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/what-can-you-hear-see-wrong-82241/#post1536209


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

bostonPedro said:


> shhhh, I am the inspector who invented them
> :biggrin:


seems your competition paid attention.....






:vs_cool:
~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> He wouldn't dare speak to me that way.
> 
> He also wouldn't be this lame.
> 
> ...


Wow, good work. So Chicken Steve had to resort to creating an alter ego to argue this...I'm dumbfounded.

He also can't use "you're" and "your" correctly, another dead giveaway that it's Steve.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I see.....:vs_no_no_no:~CS~:vs_no_no_no:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

chicken steve said:


> seems your competition paid attention.....
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/aSABxGkEZ0Q
> ...


GREAT POST. 
Very informative and hopefully people pay attention to it and use some of the products shown. Personally,I like the Arlington clamp because of cost and ease of use. 3 to 4 for dollars for an effective product is not too much imo.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> GREAT POST.
> Very informative and hopefully people pay attention to it and use some of the products shown. Personally,I like the Arlington clamp because of cost and ease of use. 3 to 4 for dollars for an effective product is not too much imo.



Hi Chicken Steve. Now that you have been outed, do you enjoy having a conversation with yourself?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I think he is sad that the thread he made about me backfired on him.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So, why would multiple manufacturers respond with a product after a code cycle update, if it were _not_ a mandatory requirement ?

~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> So, why would multiple manufacturers respond with a product after a code cycle update, if it were _not_ a mandatory requirement ?
> 
> ~CS~


Is that the best you can do? :lol: They still make non-TR receptacles even though there are very few places they can be used now. 

Secondly, you worded that in a deceptive way. The manufacturers did not "respond" with a product, they made a product then lied that it's required by the NEC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> So, why would multiple manufacturers respond with a product after a code cycle update, if it were _not_ a mandatory requirement ?
> 
> ~CS~


How can you possibly ask the question you just asked? 

All we have are options. There are hundreds of different styles and colors of devices and cover plates. There are different style boxes, connectors, etc. 

I think it's great that manufacturers make connectors to bring the GEC into a panel. Having a choice is great.

But code simply does not require it, and most manufacturers of panels and meter pans put a small hole for the GEC to enter thru, and have their product listed that way.

If you want to use a Kenny Clamp or similar device, go for it. But don't be so ignorant that you say the existence of a product means that it is required.

Arlington makes stacker romex supports. Do we HAVE to use those simply because they exist??? Think about how absurd you are being.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MTW said:


> Is that the best you can do? :lol: They still make non-TR receptacles even though there are very few places they can be used now.
> 
> Secondly, you worded that in a deceptive way. The manufacturers did not "respond" with a product, they made a product then lied that it's required by the NEC.


He is literally asking why a manufacturer sells a product.

Ummm, to make money....?

Only someone who doesn't know what they are talking about would use the fact that a product is for sale as a way to say that it *has to* be used.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> Is that the best you can do? :lol: They still make non-TR receptacles even though there are very few places they can be used now.
> 
> Secondly, you worded that in a deceptive way. The manufacturers did not "respond" with a product, they made a product then lied that it's required by the NEC.


The "hole" the manufactures put in is listed so their asses are covered. The Arlington clamp in particular costs between 3-4 dollars. Now we have electricians feeling comfortable drilling their own hole for the GEC if the listed hole is not available or in a weird spot and its illegal and opens us up to liabilities. The listed hole is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in the business because its a freaking hole BUT their hole is listed while ours if we drill one is not. We can get into trouble or minimum be in couirt which would be a headache if something bad happens and some jerk off lawyer comes after us while the manufactures can just say our "hole" is listed. 
This is the reason I went on and on and on and on in this thread. The listed "hole" thing pisses me off because their hole is legal but if we were to drill a hole its not. ITS A FREAKING HOLE !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wow, just when you thought he couldn't possibly make a less intelligent post :vs_laugh:


I don't even remember people saying that they drill their own hole. But he moved on to that because he was proven dead wrong about the hole that the manufacturer punches in their panel for the purpose of bringing the GEC thru, and lists it that way. He's too much of a chicken steve cuck to admit to being wrong.


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

*hmmmmmmmm*

Apparently this required by code Arlington fitting is _only_ required on a service with ungrounded conductors smaller than 350 cu/500 al. :thumbup:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Not sure if people know this but their was a lawsuit about taping devices. A lawyer said tape is not listed for this purpose and creates heat etc etc. Now, some people tape their devices and some don't but electricians have been doing it for decades and nothing happened. 
Then a lawyer saw an opening and went for it. 
We need to look out for each other because there are people out there who could make our lives a living hell or bankrupt us. Their hole is listed but ours wont be if we drill one because there listed "hole" is in a weird spot or we happen to use equipment without a hole and drill one and I just dont want to see any electrician be held liable if some lawyer happens to come after them.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Wow, just when you thought he couldn't possibly make a less intelligent post :vs_laugh:
> 
> 
> I don't even remember people saying that they drill their own hole. But he moved on to that because he was proven dead wrong about the hole that the manufacturer punches in their panel for the purpose of bringing the GEC thru, and lists it that way. He's too much of a chicken steve cuck to admit to being wrong.


Go read the 1000 post thread and stop being a dink. People admitted that they do it and you said you do too


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Not sure if people know this but their was a lawsuit about taping devices. A lawyer said tape is not listed for this purpose and creates heat etc etc. Now, some people tape their devices and some don't but electricians have been doing it for decades and nothing happened.
> Then a lawyer saw an opening and went for it.
> We need to look out for each other because there are people out there who could make our lives a living hell or bankrupt us. Their hole is listed but ours wont be if we drill one because there listed "hole" is in a weird spot or we happen to use equipment without a hole and drill one and I just dont want to see any electrician be held liable if some lawyer happens to come after them.


That's cute, you are just looking out for us.

Bologna, you are trying to save face because you have been smeared up and down this thread.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Go read the 1000 post thread and stop being a dink. People admitted that they do it and you said you do too


People also admitted to bringing the GEC thru a romex connector, and they also admitted that is against code.

So what? That has nothing to do with this discussion. We are speaking about a factory hole listed for use.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> I think he is sad that the thread he made about me backfired on him.


LOL. I just like breaking your balls because you think you're brilliant but you're really not


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

double post and cant delete it


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> People also admitted to bringing the GEC thru a romex connector, and they also admitted that is against code.
> 
> So what? That has nothing to do with this discussion. We are speaking about a factory hole listed for use.


Once again you fail to see the stupidity of allowing manufactures to have a listed hole but not a hole drilled out by an electrician be legal
You and I know that electricians will drill their own if they need to and now because our hole isn't listed our installation is illegal and opens us up to liability while the manufacturers made sure to have there hole listed to cover their asses. EMT said it perfectly "a hole is a hole" to US but that wont cut if someone comes after an electrician and drags them into court. Ours isnt listed and seeing how its just a freaking hole electricians will drill one to make their installation easier BUT our hole is somehow illegal


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> LOL. I just like breaking your balls because you think you're brilliant but you're really not


While I am probably the most brilliant person to sit in this desk chair today, I have been clear the entire time that this is basic code that everyone understands, even first year helpers. It's only a couple of you who oppose it, out of the whole world.

It's not brilliance, it's common sense.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Once again you fail to see the stupidity of allowing manufactures to have a listed hole but not a hole drilled out by an electrician be legal


 As Steve posted and you agreed, the means must be listed. That is what code says. 



> You and I know that electricians will drill their own if they need to and now because our hole isn't listed our installation is illegal and opens us up to liability while the manufacturers made sure to have there hole listed to cover their asses. EMT said it perfectly "a hole is a hole" to US but that wont cut if someone comes after an electrician and drags them into court. Ours isnt listed and seeing how its just a freaking hole electricians will drill one to make their installation easier BUT our hole is somehow illegal


I really don't care about any of this. The threat of a lawsuit that has never happened before because some half-wit on the internet says it could happen is simply meaningless.

In the end, the GEC doesn't need to be bonded as it enters and you could run it thru the little hole. Those are the facts. Your attempts to refute those facts have failed. You have failed.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> While I am probably the most brilliant person to sit in this desk chair today, I have been clear the entire time that this is basic code that everyone understands, even first year helpers. It's only a couple of you who oppose it, out of the whole world.
> 
> It's not brilliance, it's common sense.


Not really, you're just a tool. You see no hypocrisy and really dont even seem to give a damn that manufactures made sure to cover their asses but if electricians drill a hole its somehow illegal. You are just a typical fall in line chump


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> That's cute, you are just looking out for us.
> 
> Bologna, you are trying to save face because you have been smeared up and down this thread.



Now you can read minds. 
You really are full of yourself 
Typical fall in line chump. Go find the CEO of some company that makes cabinets with a "listed hole" and lick his ass. I am sure it wouldnt be the first time you tasted butt


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Not really, you're just a tool. You see no hypocrisy and really dont even seem to give a damn that manufactures made sure to cover their asses but if electricians drill a hole its somehow illegal. You are just a typical fall in line chump


This makes no sense at all. I could care less if an electrician drills a hole in a panel. I don't see any liability problem with that. And I am GLAD that manufacturers put holes in the panel for the GEC. Your entire premise is just plain old stupid.

And I will also point out for the 50th time that it's not just me that you are speaking to and calling a chump, it's everyone else out there except for you and 2 other people (who may actually be you under different usernames).


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This makes no sense at all. I could care less if an electrician drills a hole in a panel. I don't see any liability problem with that. And I am GLAD that manufacturers put holes in the panel for the GEC. Your entire premise is just plain old stupid.
> 
> And I will also point out for the 50th time that it's not just me that you are speaking to and calling a chump, it's everyone else out there except for you and 2 other people (who may actually be you under different usernames).


You really are clueless. Their hole is listed but ours wont be. Why? Its a freaking hole. That is what bothers me. 
Whats the difference between a hole they drill out and we drill out? 
Nothing except theirs is listed 
I know you are too much of a fall in line personality type to find that ridiculous because you are an ass kisser. 
So put it this way, people use a freaking clamp or other means before you feel comfortable drilling your own and just running your GEC through it because a hole may seem like hole but it really isnt if one has a listing and yours wont be on what happens to one of the most important parts of an electrical installation.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Keep trying.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

No need to try. I already know allowing manufactures to have a listed hole is garbage. What its already doing is making electricians comfortable drilling their own if they need to thus making their installation illegal because of the hypocrisy of a hole being listed while another is not. 
That opens electricians up to liabilities that they should not have to face. So until the code makes our hole if we drill one and use it on equal footing with a manufactures hole then I will continue to say dont use the hole and to use another means


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

You have to do a lot better than that. 

Your trolling is weak.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

We all know it is OK to run the gec through a hole in the panel and terminate it in the panel. 
No one has yet to dispute this fact with any type of real theory. I am guessing no one from boston can dispute this with facts.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Lame or is the ass kisser starting to see the hypocrisy of allowing a listed hole versus electricians making their own because there really is no difference other than they covered their asses with a listing and is just too much of a coward to state it. Either way, what people like you say is meaningless anyway 
And once again to people reading this, use a clamp or other means until our hole is on equal footing with the manufacturers hole so you dont risk falling into the bad habit of making your own hole and thus creating an illegal installation and thus being liable if something should happen


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

This is the worst trolling I have ever seen.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> Lame or is the ass kisser starting to see the hypocrisy of allowing a listed hole versus electricians making their own because there really is no difference other than they covered their asses with a listing and is just too much of a coward to state it. Either way, what people like you say is meaningless anyway
> And once again to people reading this, use a clamp or other means until our hole is on equal footing with the manufacturers hole so you dont risk falling into the bad habit of making your own hole and thus creating an illegal installation and thus being liable if something should happen


Why would making your own hole be bad. You do know they make panels with know KO's at all right. What the manufactures have proved is that there is no reason to bond the gec as it comes into the panel. Show me proof and I will admit my bad.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Lame or is the ass kisser starting to see the hypocrisy of allowing a listed hole versus electricians making their own because there really is no difference other than they covered their asses with a listing and is just too much of a coward to state it. Either way, what people like you say is meaningless anyway
> And once again to people reading this, use a clamp or other means until our hole is on equal footing with the manufacturers hole so you dont risk falling into the bad habit of making your own hole and thus creating an illegal installation and thus being liable if something should happen


Steve, is that what you want to say but are afraid to say under your real name?


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Poor ass kisser knows I am right and has nothing relevant to dispute it. Go read the the 1000 plus post thread and see how many are already drilling their own hole. 
Everyone know its idiotic to let the manufactures make a hole but not let an electrician to make a hole but what some dont get is that their hole is listed and that makes it legal.......well because the manufacturers hole is a magical hole while ours is illegal


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

chicken steve said:


> Panels, switchgear, troughers , meters according to 110.28 would have to have an exclusive hole _'listed'_ for GEC entry per 250.8A8 , GEC's were introduced to 250.8 in the '11 cycle.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The "Other listed means." is the ticket. The 1/4" hole the manufacturer includes as a KO on their LISTED panel or meter base meets that requirement. As would another connector suitable for a single conductor in any other hole.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Poor ass kisser knows I am right and has nothing relevant to dispute it. Go read the the 1000 plus post thread and see how many are already drilling their own hole.
> Everyone know its idiotic to let the manufactures make a hole but not let an electrician to make a hole but what some dont get is that their hole is listed and that makes it legal.......well because the manufacturers hole is a magical hole while ours is illegal


Fail troll is fail.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> Steve, is that what you want to say but are afraid to say under your real name?


Not the chicken man. What is with you tin foil hat people. You go to peoples home page and check them out, go through their posts, analize their writing and compare it to other people. Get a life man, well maybe not you personally but Hack sure did do all of that.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

RePhase277 said:


> The "Other listed means." is the ticket. The 1/4" hole the manufacturer includes as a KO on their LISTED panel or meter base meets that requirement. As would another connector suitable for a single conductor in any other hole.


The problem is that code section addresses _connections_ of the GEC, not routing it through an enclosure. That section is addressing things like water pipe clamps, acorns, cad welding, etc.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Not the chicken man. What is with you tin foil hat people. You go to peoples home page and check them out, go through their posts, analize their writing and compare it to other people. Get a life man, well maybe not you personally but Hack sure did do all of that.


Your trolling = epic fail.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

bostonPedro said:


> The "hole" the manufactures put in is listed so their asses are covered. The Arlington clamp in particular costs between 3-4 dollars. Now we have electricians feeling comfortable drilling their own hole for the GEC if the listed hole is not available or in a weird spot and its illegal and opens us up to liabilities. The listed hole is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in the business because its a freaking hole BUT their hole is listed while ours if we drill one is not. We can get into trouble or minimum be in couirt which would be a headache if something bad happens and some jerk off lawyer comes after us while the manufactures can just say our "hole" is listed.
> This is the reason I went on and on and on and on in this thread. The listed "hole" thing pisses me off because their hole is legal but if we were to drill a hole its not. ITS A FREAKING HOLE !!!!!!!!!!!!


The listed holed is punched with a rounded edge and powder coated like the rest of the enclosure. Drilling a hole leaves raw steel exposed. Still not really a problem though.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

sbrn33 said:


> Why would making your own hole be bad. You do know they make panels with know KO's at all right. What the manufactures have proved is that there is no reason to bond the gec as it comes into the panel. Show me proof and I will admit my bad.


Their hole is UL listed. Its stated in their brochures and that makes it legal as it falls under "other means" in the GEC section of 250 in the code
Our hole even if its the same size is not listed for use. Our hole is not equal to theirs because of the UL listing that they got


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

RePhase277 said:


> The listed holed is punched with a rounded edge and powder coated like the rest of the enclosure. Drilling a hole leaves raw steel exposed. Still not really a problem though.


Go back to Canada. You can't just carpet bag your way into this thread.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Their hole is UL listed. Its stated in their brochures and that makes it legal as it falls under "other means" in the GEC section of 250 in the code
> Our hole even if its the same size is not listed for use. Our hole is not equal to theirs because of the UL listing that they got


I see.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

MTW said:


> Go back to Canada. You can't just carpet bag your way into this thread.


Don't tell me what to do!:furious:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

bostonPedro said:


> Their hole is UL listed. Its stated in their brochures and that makes it legal as it falls under "other means" in the GEC section of 250 in the code
> Our hole even if its the same size is not listed for use. Our hole is not equal to theirs because of the UL listing that they got


I like it when I come back and see Chicken Steve's alter egos flailing around.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Our hole is not equal to theirs


So much could be said about this.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

RePhase277 said:


> The listed holed is punched with a rounded edge and powder coated like the rest of the enclosure. Drilling a hole leaves raw steel exposed. Still not really a problem though.


Silly isnt it? 
So basically the paint makes theirs somehow legal compared to our hole that would leave raw metal? What if we file the hole to smooth away any rough edge and paint it to make it smoother and to cover the raw metal. I know I have had to use touch up paint on occasion on covers or transformer covers. But nope that still wont make any hole we drill legal because the code doesnt approve it. The manufactures hole is a magical hole


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Silly isnt it?
> So basically the paint makes theirs somehow legal compared to our hole that would leave raw metal. What if we file the hole to smooth away any rough edge and paint it to make it smoother and to cover the raw metal. I know I have had to use touch up paint on occasion on covers or transformer covers. But nope that still wont make any hole we drill legal because the code doesnt approve it. The manufactures hole is a magical hole


:stupid:


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> Their hole is UL listed. Its stated in their brochures and that makes it legal as it falls under "other means" in the GEC section of 250 in the code
> Our hole even if its the same size is not listed for use. Our hole is not equal to theirs because of the UL listing that they got


This is my last comment to you unless we get close to 1,000 posts again. They received the UL listing because it is totally up to code to run the gec through a small hole in the panel. Duh. 
Once again all I am asking is for a code ref or even theory proving you side.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

sbrn33 said:


> This is my last comment to you unless we get close to 1,000 posts again. They received the UL listing because it is totally up to code to run the gec through a small hole in the panel. Duh.
> Once again all I am asking is for a code ref or even theory proving you side.


250.8 (8) Other listed means. 

The manufactured hole is listed for use. Any hole we drill is not listed for use. 
Why? Because their hole is a magical hole. As I stated before electricians are already drilling their own hole for the GEC as evidenced by people admitting such in the 1000 post article if they need to because they see it as just a hole also but that listing that manufactures got makes theirs legal and any hole for the GEC we drill illegal and thats nonsense....its a freaking hole


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> 250.8 (8) Other listed means.
> 
> The manufactured hole is listed for use. Any hole we drill is not listed for use.


You are a moron. that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Is it dangerous, or against code.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Go read the the 1000 plus post thread and see


You keep saying to read that thread. I *wrote* that motherfu*ckin thread.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> 250.8 (8) Other listed means.
> 
> The manufactured hole is listed for use. Any hole we drill is not listed for use.
> Why? Because their hole is a magical hole. As I stated before electricians are already drilling their own hole for the GEC as evidenced by people admitting such in the 1000 post article if they need to because they see it as just a hole also but that listing that manufactures got makes theirs legal and any hole for the GEC we drill illegal and thats nonsense


bostonChickenSteve,

How long do you think you can troll this thread?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

This is why I need to be a Mod.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> Why would making your own hole be bad. You do know they make panels with know KO's at all right. What the manufactures have proved is that there is no reason to bond the gec as it comes into the panel. Show me proof and I will admit my bad.


While I would love to completely agree with you against this idiot, I have to be honest here. What RePhase said in post #193 is correct. 

Steve brought up the code article that says a GEC has to enter via certain specific situations, one of which is "Other listed means.". Steve was correct in that article applying. What he doesn't recognize is that the hole in the panel or meter base is a listed means.

But drilling your own hole is not, so to go by code alone, it would not be allowed. 

But I will repeat that drilling your own hole is only something that this Mexican brought up to distract from the real discussion, because the 3 of them (or one using 3 user names) failed at proving that the GEC needs to be bonded as it enters and that you can't use the small hole.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MTW said:


> The problem is that code section addresses _connections_ of the GEC, not routing it through an enclosure. That section is addressing things like water pipe clamps, acorns, cad welding, etc.


Hmmm, I haven't looked into that. You may be correct and my above post to Sabrina might be wrong. I haven't looked nor do I feel like it now.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

sbrn33 said:


> You are a moron. that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Is it dangerous, or against code.


Another jerk off. Why am I not surprised. Thats what I am talking about, I am not talking about the bonding nonsense, There were 2 things talked about. Keep up tool
Tell me Mr Jerk Off what is so freaking special about the manufactured hole versus a hole we drill? 
Nothing, right. Except any hole we drill is actually illegal. 
Do you comprehend that 
Do you speaky the English 
Do you get the hypocracy 

Or you another fall in line tool who thinks the manufactured hole is a magical hole


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Another jerk off. Why am I not surprised. Thats what I am talking about, I am not talking about the bonding nonsense, There were 2 things talked about. Keep up tool
> Tell me Mr Jerk Off what is so freaking special about the manufactured hole versus a hole we drill?
> Nothing, right. Except any hole we drill is actually illegal.
> Do you comprehend that
> ...


^^Another failed troll post.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

What's the difference between a receptacle that was made in the Red Chinese Receptacle plant and sent off to Leviton who had it listed by a NRTL and the same exact receptacle that the Red Chinese Receptacle company sent to a smaller company who didn't pay for it to be listed and sold it on eBay?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

bostonPedro said:


> Another jerk off. Why am I not surprised. Thats what I am talking about, I am not talking about the bonding nonsense, There were 2 things talked about. Keep up tool
> Tell me Mr Jerk Off what is so freaking special about the manufactured hole versus a hole we drill?
> Nothing, right. Except any hole we drill is actually illegal.
> Do you comprehend that
> ...


Apparently you do not read very well. Want me to start writing in spanish? Do you have a Visa?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> What's the difference between a receptacle that was made in the Red Chinese Receptacle plant and sent off to Leviton who had it listed by a NRTL and the same exact receptacle that the Red Chinese Receptacle company sent to a smaller company who didn't pay for it to be listed and sold it on eBay?


We should take up some ASCII space discussing that.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

> Quote:
> *250.8* Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment.
> (A) Permitted Methods. Equipment grounding conductors,
> *grounding electrode conductors*, and bonding jumpers shall be
> ...



I don't see anything there stating 'upon entry'

I'd see (2) (3) or (4) meeting code. It's where you terminate the GEC in the panel.

A sleeve needs to be bonded to the GEC in a raceway by (8) Other listed means.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

What a freaking bunch of fools and ass kissers
Not a single person sees the hypocrisy of allowing a manufactured hole as legal versus one an electrician drills out as illegal. 
There is no difference between the 2 other than possibly a paint coating on theirs. 
People have already admitted to drilling their own hole for the GEC if the manufactured hole is in a weird spot. 

Not one person can explain what exactly is so freaking special about the manufactured hole that makes it legal versus one we drill as illegal. 

Just fall in line like a tool


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> What a freaking bunch of fools and ass kissers
> Not a single person sees the hypocrisy of allowing a manufactured hole as legal versus one an electrician drills out as illegal.
> There is no difference between the 2 other than possibly a paint coating on theirs.
> People have already admitted to drilling their own hole for the GEC if the manufactured hole is in a weird spot.
> ...


You are so eloquent and smart. I wish I could be as smart as you are. :crying:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> bostonChickenSteve,
> 
> How long do you think you can troll this thread?



Meh, not sure. Its getting boring :vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

This can't be steve, even his trolling isn't this pathetic.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

emtnut said:


> I don't see anything there stating 'upon entry'
> 
> I'd see (2) (3) or (4) meeting code. It's where you terminate the GEC in the panel.
> 
> A sleeve needs to be bonded to the GEC in a raceway by (8) Other listed means.


Correct 
The GEC is covered in 250.60s more or less:vs_laugh: 

But 312 covers a conductor entering a cabinet and makes no distinction between bare and insulated. A GEC is a conductor and somehow its legal to bring it into the listed hole but not a hole that is drilled. The listing makes it compatible for 312 as far as conductors entering a cabinet


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Correct
> The GEC is covered in 250.60s more or less:vs_laugh:


Amazing insight. Spectacular analysis.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> > They received the UL listing because it is totally up to code to run the gec through a small hole in the panel.
> 
> 
> Prove it
> ...


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> Amazing insight. Spectacular analysis.


You are like the Steven Wright of this board except he was actually funny


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Prove it
> 
> please include _all_ trough ,panel & switchgear manufacturers
> 
> ...


Why don't you, since you said that you contacted them all? Thanks. 


:vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Prove it
> 
> please include _all_ trough ,panel & switchgear manufacturers
> 
> ...


You have proved nothing other than your inability to interpret very simple and obvious code rules.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> You are like the Steven Wright of this board except he was actually funny


You are like the Chicken Steve of this forum except you are actually worse.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

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



~CS~


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> You are like the Chicken Steve of this forum except you are actually worse.


Yawn. 
Yet no one has a legitimate reason as to why the listed hole by manufacturers is better than a same size hole an electrician would drill other than to sit their picking their noses going ahhh because 
Its a magical GEC hole


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Just amazing. Those on the other side of this issue can do nothing other than parrot the same things that have been debunked well over a dozen times already.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> Just amazing. Those on the other side of this issue can do nothing other than parrot the same things that have been debunked well over a dozen times already.


Nonsense. 
Why is their hole listed?
You think they seriously paid to have a freaking hole listed for no reason?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

bostonPedro said:


> Yawn.
> Yet no one has a legitimate reason as to why the listed hole by manufacturers is better than a same size hole an electrician would drill other than to sit their picking their noses going ahhh because
> Its a magical GEC hole


I haven't read everything in ALL the threads on these, but ....

I doubt the 'hole' is listed, but is approved for that use in the listing for the panel.

I could bend some metal, and make a panel too (including drilling my own hole with my mfr's drill bit). It would be safe .
I would have to have it approved however.
I can get cUL, or my local authority to give it a sticker.

Point being, once I get the sticker, then my panel is safe.

So, you just don't like the UL thing in general ?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> ~CS~


You know that was refuted by Milbank’s own engineering team. You were asked to have him clarify, but you refuse. And here you are still posting it as if it means something. 

You are just a dishonest person.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

emtnut said:


> I haven't read everything in ALL the threads on these, but ....
> 
> I doubt the 'hole' is listed, but is approved for that use in the listing for the panel.
> 
> ...


People posted links with it listed then others posted links with the hole not listed so there is also that. 
Yes i basically dont like that their hole is listed for the purpose of a GEC which therefor makes a hole we drill illegal. Companies paid to have it listed to cover. their behinds. Why? Does the listing make it legal as far as 312 is concerned because no one ever thought to make an exception for a GEC about conductors entering a cabinet?

Does the fact the hole has enamel protect it from corrosion which is in 312 and also 250.62 ?...Dissimilar metals causes corrosion and yet we run bare wire in conduit all the time but its listed so its covered

What makes the listed hole so special and ours illegal?
I just know that companies dont spend money to have things listed if they dont need to


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> ~CS~


This is probably one of the most idiotic threads I have ever seen on this forum.

But to cite a glorified salesman to substantiate your claims when the manufacturer has already refuted this is beyond ******ed. 

Grasping at straws much? Give up man.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> You are just a dishonest person.


That's the bottom line. You can't have an intelligent debate with someone who resorts to such disgusting tactics as Steve has.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

So let me catch up here.

Everyone, including Boston Pete, agrees there is no code that says you must bond a GEC at entry to a panel, and the small hole provided by the manufacturer is ok to use right? Well, except CS of course.

Now the argument is if an electrician drills his own hole, can it be used?


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

Yup. 

This thread has gone full dildos.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

....


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Signal1 said:


> Yup.
> 
> This thread has gone full dildos.



It has. But at least the poll results support what we all know to be true. Everything beyond that is pure entertainment.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

MTW said:


> It has. But at least the poll results support what we all know to be true. Everything beyond that is pure entertainment.


Agreed


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

What if I drill a half inch hole and decide not to use it? Are my ko seals only listing for pre punched holes?

This is silly.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> So let me catch up here.
> 
> Everyone, including Boston Pete, agrees there is no code that says you must bond a GEC at entry to a panel, and the small hole provided by the manufacturer is ok to use right? Well, except CS of course.
> 
> Now the argument is if an electrician drills his own hole, can it be used?


More or less hole has been my gripe the whole thread. I hate it. 
Next time someone lists a poll about this asinine magical hole they should put "listed" in the poll which was not done in this case by the person who created the poll. Instead the poll creator has 2 separate questions ie one in the title and one in their first post and then acts like a wise ass when they were the dummy who asked 2 separate questions, Yes you are a dummy
A freaking magical listed hole is somehow better than one any electrician makes. Why?
Still no legit answer from anyone. 
Wonder if I can pull a rabbit from this magical asinine listed hole or maybe some long scarfs. Does this magical hole lead to another universe, why oh why is this teeny magical listed hole legal and a drilled out hole not. 
Answer. 
BECAUSE their hole is magical


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> More or less hole has been my gripe the whole thread. I hate it.
> Next time someone lists a poll about this asinine magical hole they should put "listed" in the poll which was not done in this case by the person who created the poll. Instead the poll creator has 2 separate questions ie one in the title and one in their first post and then acts like a wise ass when they were the dummy who asked 2 separate questions
> A freaking magical listed hole is somehow better than one any electrician makes. Why?
> Still no legit answer from anyone.
> ...


Your trolling is still awful. It's not even amateur grade. Please give up now.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> It has. But at least the poll results support what we all know to be true. Everything beyond that is pure entertainment.



Read the actual poll question jackass. 
Your first post says listed 
The poll does not 
You dink 

You cant even do a poll correctly you dummy


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Read the actual poll question jackass.
> Your first post says listed
> The poll does not
> You dink


You are really pathetic.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Read the actual poll question jackass.
> Your first post says listed
> The poll does not
> You dink
> ...


Yup, another millenial.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> You are really pathetic.



Screwed up the listed part I meant manufactured magical hole which is listed

Is running the GEC through the 1/4" hole NEC compliant or not? 

Is running the GEC through the 1/4" hole provided by the manufacturers NEC compliant or not? 

2 separate questions 

And Hack, you are an ass kisser.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Cute. Look at the 2 old farts diddling each other. Go get a room and Hack make sure to gargle with a whole bottle of Listerine before you kiss your boyfriend because it stinks like crap from all the ass you lick


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

bostonPedro said:


> Screwed up the listed part I meant manufactured magical hole which is listed
> 
> Is running the GEC through the 1/4" hole NEC compliant or not?
> 
> ...


I forget who said it in the other thread, but you seem like the type that takes all day to run 20 feet of EMT.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

MTW said:


> I forget who said it in the other thread, but you seem like the type that takes all day to run 20 feet of EMT.


Thats hurts. :vs_laugh: 

Did you forget to take your Geritol or are you always this lame?


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> More or less hole has been my gripe the whole thread. I hate it.
> Next time someone lists a poll about this asinine magical hole they should put "listed" in the poll which was not done in this case by the person who created the poll. Instead the poll creator has 2 separate questions ie one in the title and one in their first post and then acts like a wise ass when they were the dummy who asked 2 separate questions, Yes you are a dummy
> A freaking magical listed hole is somehow better than one any electrician makes. Why?
> Still no legit answer from anyone.
> ...


Can you answer these questions for me with a simple Yes or no without insults please.

1- Does the GEC need to be bonded as it enters a panel by code?

2- Can you just run the GEC through the hole provided by the manufacturer?


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> Can you answer these questions for me with a simple Yes or no without insults please.
> 
> 1- Does the GEC need to be bonded as it enters a panel by code?
> 
> 2- Can you just run the GEC through the hole provided by the manufacturer?


NO and YES 
Like I stated before its the manufactured listed hole that bothers me.
The manufactured hole is magical and thus legal because its listed for that purpose but any hole we drill is illegal and I think it stinks and I think that anyone who doesn't see the hypocrisy and stupidity in the magical hole being legit versus a hole an electrician makes as not legit should basically go play in traffic.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Had to edit that. Was watching the game and not paying attention


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> NO and YES
> Like I stated before its the manufactured listed hole that bothers me.
> The manufactured hole is magical and thus legal because its listed for that purpose but any hole we drill is illegal and I think it stinks and I think that anyone who doesn't see the hypocrisy and stupidity in the magical hole being legit versus a hole an electrician makes as not legit should basically go play in traffic.


Thanks.

Now I know there is no reason to follow this thread anymore


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Hey Boston, maybe you should start a new thread / poll on your issue with this?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> NO and YES
> Like I stated before its the manufactured listed hole that bothers me.


 There are very few certainties in life. But I think it's safe to say that no one cares what bothers you. No one.

You have made yourself into the forum clown for no reason other than not wanting to admit that you were wrong earlier in the thread.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Remember, this guy only changed his argument into this silly thing about the difference between a factory hole and a field made hole today when he was proven wrong for all his prior statements. And like Steve, he is not man enough to admit it.


bostonPedro said:


> Its illegal
> Article 312.5
> Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312.5(a) through (C)
> That covers cabinets that panel boards go into; cutout boxes and meter socket enclosures
> ...





bostonPedro said:


> Refuted how? The GEC is a conductor and you have to protect it from abrasion. To say otherwise is plain stupidity. You act like the GEC is some magical wire that doesn't need to follow the rules of any other conductor and you're wrong





bostonPedro said:


> Show me the code reference stating it as FACT not what you think is commonsense. Lots of things are commonsense yet we use tamper proof outlets.
> BTW where was it answered? Are you referring to the picture of a freaking pull box and using that for cabinets?





bostonPedro said:


> You havent refuted anything. You posted a pic of a pull box.
> When are pull boxes and cabinets that panel boards go into the same?
> Answer-they are not which is why they are in seperate articles
> Try again.





bostonPedro said:


> Show the code reference or stfu? Its really that simple.
> I gather that you are jealous of union members simply because they make more than you nyuck nyuck or maybe you were too stupid to pass the entrance exam nyuck nyuck because I never mentioned unions at all
> How long would it take for a Romex wire ran through a metal stud to finally short nyuck nyuck YET you have to protect it with a grommet dont you nyuck nyuck
> 
> Show the code refence nyuck nyuck oh thats right you cant nyuck nyuck so all you have is bullcrap





bostonPedro said:


> That was a reference to commonsense.
> I get what you are saying yet the code is full of things because people lack commonsense.
> I could also point to Article 250 and how it talks about protecting the GEC from corrosion. Well dissimilar metals corrode copper and yet we can run it in conduit bare which is a different metal BUT its listed for that use in the code BUT no where do I see it listed for use in cabinets entering bare.
> The code doesn't differentiate between bare and insulated as far as abrasion although it could but yet they have not so until then I will say its illegal





bostonPedro said:


> Here ya go. :vs_laugh:
> 
> 2018 CEC 12-3022. Entrance of cables into boxes, cabinets, and fittings
> 
> ...





bostonPedro said:


> Call me Sir
> 
> :vs_cool:
> 
> BTW I think you know the pic I referenced.....the Holt pic that shows a pull box that you posted





bostonPedro said:


> I dont need to. I am simply stating that in your country they addressed it and in mine they did not.
> As far as many being the same....so what that means many are different also





bostonPedro said:


> And dissimilar metals corrode as I stated above YET its perfectly legal to run a bare conductor in metal conduit. Its never been addressed in the NEC about entering cabinets or pull boxes for that matter. Commonsense isnt code because we all have differing "opinions"


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Well, let me ask you. 
Does it make sense that the manufactured hole is listed for use to enter a GEC but one we drill is not?


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Well, let me ask you.
> Does it make sense that the manufactured hole is listed for use to enter a GEC but one we drill is not?


If you are asking me, there is no difference as long as the hole is filled.

In the CEC we have a code that says we can’t have a hole left in the panel so if you drilled a hole to big, it would have to be filled is all.

Can’t remember how big, I will look it up


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> Hey Boston, maybe you should start a new thread / poll on your issue with this?


Well let me ask you. 
Does it make sense that the manufactured hole is listed for use for the GEC but if we drill one it isnt at least in the US anyway?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

bostonPedro said:


> Well, let me ask you.
> Does it make sense that the manufactured hole is listed for use to enter a GEC but one we drill is not?



I can't comment on your ability to drill a hole :no:


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> Well let me ask you.
> Does it make sense that the manufactured hole is listed for use for the GEC but if we drill one it isnt at least in the US anyway?


What do you mean by “makes sense?” 

Is there a code in the NEC that says you can not drill your own hole?


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Remember, this guy only changed his argument into this silly thing about the difference between a factory hole and a field made hole today when he was proven wrong for all his prior statements. And like Steve, he is not man enough to admit it.



Get a life. You seriously went through all my posts and copied and pasted them because youre a loser. 

And no one changed their stance. I listed 312 and referenced 250 because there is no distinction between a bare and insulated conductor in the NEC entering a cabinet. The CEC makes that distinction on bare and insulated. Only until you said "listed" as in the the manufactured magical hole is when I made clear on just how stupid it is to allow a manufactured hole be legal because its listed but not one an electrician drills at least in the USA. And no one can answer that simple freaking question can they? Is it against 312 or 250.62. Why is their hole listed and what happens when electricians in the US drill their own hole because the magical hole is in a weird spot. 
The listing of the magical hole is nonsense and pisses me off because it means any hole we drill is not listed 

Hack, you're a weirdo and really need to get a hobby. You visit peoples home page, analyze their writing style, insinuate they are someone else, then go through and read their posts. Copty and paste them etc etc You are sick man, you really should get help


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> What do you mean by “makes sense?”
> 
> Is there a code in the NEC that says you can not drill your own hole?


The manufacturers had their hole listed so that means any hole we make is not listed for use. 
Its the listed part. 
Why is their hole listed? If their hole is listed and approved for use then that means one we drill is not listed and not approved for use.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> The manufacturers had their hole listed so that means any hole we make is not listed for use.
> Its the listed part.
> Why is their hole listed? If their hole is listed and approved for use then that means one we drill is not listed and not approved for use.


Everything they do must be listed or they could not sell it. It doesn’t mean an electrician can not make their own.

I don’t understand what the issue would be unless there was enough room to stick your finger in beside the GEC and get hurt.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> The manufacturers had their hole listed so that means any hole we make is not listed for use.
> Its the listed part.
> Why is their hole listed? If their hole is listed and approved for use then that means one we drill is not listed and not approved for use.


With that logic, an electrician can never make any holes. We make holes for branch circuits all the time, hell commercial panels don’t come with holes.

If what your saying was correct, we could ONLY use the holes they provide for all wiring and that is not the case.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

eddy current said:


> Everything they do must be listed or they could not sell it. It doesn’t mean an electrician can not make their own.
> 
> I don’t understand what the issue would be unless there was enough room to stick your finger in beside the GEC and get hurt.



I agree they must list things. 
BUT 
We are talking about a hole that was specifically approved for entry of the GEC. Its not the same as a manufactured panel knock out which I am sure are listed also because we know we can drill out a hole and use an approved and listed connector regardless.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> I agree they must list things.
> BUT
> We are talking about a hole that was specifically approved for entry of the GEC. Its not the same as a manufactured panel knock out which I am sure are listed also because we know we can drill out a hole and use an approved and listed connector regardless.


There is no difference. Your overthinking it. There is no safety issue. There would not be a code violation because there is no code against it. 

If an electrician butchered a hole and used a connector for a branch circuit for instance, the only thing that would be a violation would be if there was enough room to stick your finger beside the connector into the panel.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Thats where I disagree because of the listing. If their magical hole for the GEC is listed it means ours is not listed.
When they provide knockouts for wire or conduit we can use them or drill out our own because by code we have to use approved connectors. So if we decide we want to drill out our own hole for the GEC we are no longer using anything approved and listed unless we use a connector or other means listed and approved. 
Which brings me back to what has been my gripe. 
That a "hole" has been listed and approved specifally for the GEC. That listing therefor in my opinion makes any we drill out illegal unless we use a clamp or other approved means and that bothers me because its a damn hole except that their hole has been approved and listed for use as a GEC entry point 

Safety wise I agree with you. Nothing bad would happen if we used a hole we drilled out.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Who says that the hole needs to be listed? It was determined many pages back that the requirement for a listed means was for a connection, not as it enters a panel. 

You can drill your own hole. All this ranting and raving that this guy has done is for nothing. He has flipped flopped countless times on what he was complaining about. The only thing he has proven is how much of a fool he is, and how little his understanding of code and procedure is.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Who says that the hole needs to be listed? It was determined many pages back that the requirement for a listed means was for a connection, not as it enters a panel.
> 
> You can drill your own hole. All this ranting and raving that this guy has done is for nothing. He has flipped flopped countless times on what he was complaining about. The only thing he has proven is how much of a fool he is, and how little his understanding of code and procedure is.


And yet the manufactured hole is specifally listed and approved for use of the GEC as an entry point. 
No one flip flopped on anything you tool. I have from the very start said that a hole is not legal, then you went on about the listed and approved hole and yes that is legal BUT I said it shouldn't be used because electricians will then get comfortable drilling their own hole which will not be listed and thus illegal 

You on the other hand just flip flopped. First you said that the listed hole was the only hole legal BUT now you just said any hole is legal. Which is is jackass? Funny that you made sure to continually write listed hole 


Originally Posted by chicken steve View Post
Simple answer MT

It can serve any purpose it is LISTED for

~CS~
Below are your own words Hackdummy

Great. The manufacturers list it for the GEC. So that's settled. You are finished.



The funniest part about this is how YOU were the one who wanted to contact the manufacturers, and did so. But you only contacted a sales rep, and you are unwilling to ask him to clarify now that we contacted the actual engineering team to confirm that he was wrong. We also have other manufacturers whose products are listed for the GEC to exit the 5/16" hole.

But you refuse to recognize the exact proof that was your idea to get, simply because it doesn't support your stupid argument. Do you not see how bad that makes you look? A 5 year old acts less childish.

But this whole thing doesn't matter. Who cares about the little hole? You are only using the hole as a last ditch effort to get away from the fact that there is no code requirement to bond the GEC as it exits a panel or meter. A simple fact that you can't refute. 
ALSO
You couldn't ask for better proof of a manufacturer's listing. But of course chicken steve will ignore it or find some other way to try and work around it, while everyone laughs at him... 
With a drawing by Square D on how there manufactured hole is listed and approved 
ALSO 
FACT: The small holes in panels and meters can compliantly be used to bring the GEC into. 


You dink. :vs_laugh:


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

OK I am done looking into engineering my pipe towers so adios Hack and stop being an ass kisser 
Adios until I have the time to mess with you :vs_cool:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

bostonPedro said:


> And yet the manufactured hole is specifally listed and approved for use of the GEC as an entry point.


 So what? 


I am not going to read anymore of your posts. You are a fool and everyone knows it. Your trolling is weak.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Did anyone hear something?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Did anyone hear something?


I heard it, and I feel really bad about it. I think the door hit him on the way out :surprise:


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Did anyone hear something?


Yuh I did heard something along the way., the sound of breakers tripping.,


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

Guys .,,

Please try to keep it civil in here.

Thanks.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

283...


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> 283...


Long way off from sniping another grand.....:surprise:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

frenchelectrican said:


> Guys .,,
> 
> Please try to keep it civil in here.
> 
> Thanks.



Civility left ET _long ago_ FrenchOne
:crying:
Asking a _serious _electrical question here invites only _fools_ and their folly
:vs_whistle:
Recently this forum has openly put down inspectors and _inspections_, licenses and _licensure_ ,along with it's _pro-of-month_ program meeting it's demise.
:sad:
Now it's off to _trash_ the NEC as well as it's sidearm organizations.
:sad:
It's a wonder the sponsors here don't bail
:surprise:
~CS~


----------

