# Is this device grounded?



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

No..


----------



## cdnelectrician (Mar 14, 2008)

I have never seen a dimmer without a ground wire...maybe the older ones. As far as I am concerned that device is NOT bonded to ground. What if something went wrong in the dimmer and the device screws came loose?


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

cdnelectrician said:


> I have never seen a dimmer without a ground wire...


 Me either. I don't understand the point of this poll.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

william1978 said:


> Me either. I don't understand the point of this poll.


This is the original poll... The point is many people - or should I say some of the apprentices I get from time to time - are taught by other journeymen - that switches and dimmers do not need a EGC - then I get to _reprogram_ them... Sometimes it takes a little while - the water-boarding technique seems to work - but I usually get more effect from holding their hands under a chop-saw....  











:laughing: Kidding.....


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

We used to not have to ground switch's.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

william1978 said:


> We used to not have to ground switch's.


 I think it changed in the 2002.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

cdnelectrician said:


> I have never seen a dimmer without a ground wire...


Excelent point - why would I find them snipped off in a trash barrel?


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

william1978 said:


> We used to not have to ground switch's.


 Don't make me go look.... :no:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

e57 said:


> Excelent point - why would I find them snipped off in a trash barrel?


 They were saving them for scrap so they could get Christmas bonus.:thumbsup:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*Grounding switches*

WE, in the old days, did not have to ground switches...and we STILL don't. What we are grounding is the metal yokes of the switches to satisfy the requirement to BOND all metal components of an electrical system.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

e57 said:


> Don't make me go look.... :no:


 Look it up.


----------



## Saturday Cowboy (Nov 26, 2009)

Whats another screw and a scrap of green picked up off the floor? I always ground my stuff, none of this relying on poor tho legal connections to ensure that its bonded.


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

my mouse is sticking, meant to click no
defiantly not grounded


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

JoeKP said:


> my mouse is sticking, meant to click no
> defiantly not grounded


 Sure...........:laughing::laughing:


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

If you were to check with a wiggy from the strap to the hot Yes it is grounded. Is it as per the NEC, NO. Is there a chance of a problem, slim. Is the installer liable, YES. Do it right or go back to hanging drywall.


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

william1978 said:


> Sure...........:laughing::laughing:


just shush


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

william1978 said:


> Look it up.


I did 404 - which used to be 380 in the '99 NEC has no change in wording... The '93 code only refers to art. 250... Nothing specific... So there is some ambiguity there... 

However - The defined ground fault current path in 250.4(A)5 (2002 NEC) used to be called "performance of fault current path" numbered as 250.2(d) with essentially the same wording in the 1999... So IMO if there was a change it was at least ten years ago...


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Its grounded


I believe code says - as long as 1 of the screws has ONE of the "screw retainers" removed - a switch can be installed into a metal box that is grounded and not need any additional grounding requirements. I believe it says something about metal plates, but I honestly cannot remember what it says right now.

~Matt


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

e57 said:


> So IMO if there was a change it was at least ten years ago...


 There was a change, but I could have swore that it was in 2002. If it was 10 or more years ago man time flys because I remember it like it was yesterday.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

crazymurph said:


> If you were to check with a wiggy from the strap to the hot Yes it is grounded. Is it as per the NEC, NO. Is there a chance of a problem, slim. Is the installer liable, YES. Do it right or go back to hanging drywall.


 Thats what I was going to say.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Metal box. EGC jumper must be installed. So no. Might be grounded, but a violation none the less.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Some of the (I think) Hunter fan/ light dual controls package a tiny 6/32 green colored screw to be used with the unit, rather than a grounding pigtail that comes out of the housing or is riveted to the metal yolk. Put in the green screw with a ground termination and then good luck getting a decora plate flush to the wall afterward. grrrrrrrr.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Both of the devices in the drawings of the first post are grounded providing the 6-32 device screws are metal, which of course they will be. The answer is found in your code book. Read 404.9 (B)(1).


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

An up-date....


me on other forum said:


> M. D. said:
> 
> 
> > The CMP diagrees with you :
> ...


----------



## 220/221 (Sep 25, 2007)

According to my interpetation of the NEC, it is indeed grounded.


*2008 NEC*

*404.9 Provisions for General-Use Snap Switches.*

*(B) Grounding. *Snap switches, including dimmer and similar control switches, shall be connected to an equipment grounding conductor and shall provide a means to connect metal faceplates to the equipment grounding conductor, whether or not a metal faceplate is installed. Snap switches shall be considered to be part of an effective ground-fault current path if either of the following conditions is met: 
(1) The *switch is mounted* with metal screws *to a metal box* or metal cover that is connected to an equipment grounding conductor or to a nonmetallic box with integral means for connecting to an equipment grounding conductor. 



I say the switch is mounted. 

Your definition of "loose" may be different than mine. If the threads of the screws go thru the holes I'm calling it mounted.


----------



## blueheels2 (Apr 22, 2009)

I thought if you used plasitc cover plate with plastic mounting screw you didn't have to ground the device. A tad off topic. My answer is no on this device.


----------



## cdnelectrician (Mar 14, 2008)

In Ontario we do not have to ground switches, but dimmers, timers etc. (since they contain electronic components) Must have their own EGC and that must be bonded to ground.


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

220/221 said:


> According to my interpetation of the NEC, it is indeed grounded.
> 
> 
> *2008 NEC*
> ...


I see it the same way. I voted "YES", however I think there should be a third option. The other option should be "depends on how the AHJ interprets the code"


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

Ok reading the Code now I see 404.10 which states:

*404.10* *Mounting of Snap Switches*.

*(A)* *Surface type*. Snap switches used with open wiring on insulators shall be mounted on insulating material that separates the conductors at least 13mm (1/2 in.) from the surface wired over.

*(B) Box Mounted. *Flush-type snap switches mounted in boxes that are set back of the finished surface as permitted in 314.20 shall be installed so that the extension plaster ears are seated against the surface. Flush-type snap switches mounted in boxes that are flush with the finished surface or project from it shall be installed so that the mounting yoke or strap of the switch is seated against the box.

So it seems that as long as the "extension plaster ears" (which I believe is the yoke, correct me if I am wrong.) are seated against the surface of the wall it is compliant.

So I change my vote to a definate YES.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

(1) The switch is mounted with metal screws to a metal box or metal cover that is connected to an equipment grounding conductor or to a nonmetallic box with integral means for connecting to an equipment grounding conductor.

My opinion is still that this device is grounded properly.

~Matt


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

After thinking about it for the rest of the day - I have decided that the grounding of switches is not required at all - little green wires would only be necessary for non-metallic boxes, and since no effective ground fault path capable of clearing a 15 or 20A circuit in a short circuit condition is necessary - then why ever ground a switch in the first place. There is no reason to ever ground a switch - ever!

*Ever!*


----------



## Adam12 (May 28, 2008)

Yes, the dimmer is definately grounded, per the NEC.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

e57 said:


> After thinking about it for the rest of the day - I have decided that the grounding of switches is not required at all - little green wires would only be necessary for non-metallic boxes, and since no effective ground fault path capable of clearing a 15 or 20A circuit in a short circuit condition is necessary - then why ever ground a switch in the first place. There is no reason to ever ground a switch - ever!
> 
> *Ever!*


tell that to a San Francisco electrical inspector (aka God). Dan Fross would call you on it if he was having a stressful day (which is like every day.)


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

william1978 said:


> No..


 This is my final answer.


----------



## Adam12 (May 28, 2008)

Rudeboy said:


> tell that to a San Francisco electrical inspector (aka God). Dan Fross would call you on it if he was having a stressful day (which is like every day.)


God would be wrong in this case.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

Adam12 said:


> God would be wrong in this case.


i don't disagree with you, but God is still the father of all that is right and true in the city of San Francisco. Damn be, interpretations of the NEC.
SFEC (or at least the CEC) is the proper scripture here.
:laughing:


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Rudeboy said:


> tell that to a San Francisco electrical inspector (aka God). Dan Fross would call you on it if he was having a stressful day (which is like every day.)


He's too much trouble to even get him in the building - half the time he's inspecting completed and aging work on buildings along the way... ("Hello - the job is in THIS building....") Then you have to pry him away from commenting on other trades... (Ah - you are the Electrical Inspector - Right?) Then you have to point him at your scope.... ({where did he go?!?} "Ah - rough in is over here - there is no work in my scope over there....") BUT - anyway - he too is a believer in grounding switches - we have discussed it at length... Next time I see him, I'm gonna bring this up.... It will be interesting.... Because once you get him talking he won't leave...

However - knowing my luck the next inspector I see would probably be Carol Roseman - as if I would get a word in edgewise, she's not a conversationalist....  BTW I think the secret of dealing with her is to realize that she sees her job as a form of sexual S&M like gratification... :whistling2: You need to make her realize you're not her bitch. I do all I can not to give her an inch.... AND _if you can't do that_ - Talking to another EC, what you need to do is write a letter and have it on file stating that you will not have her on your projects - and you'll never have to deal with that psycho again... Hinds covers all the EC's who won't take her... :thumbsup:


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

You guys act like the inspectors are some higher power. If I feel an inspector is out of line, I ask for their supervisors phone number, and call them while they are standing in front of me. I wont get pushed around by someone who doesnt know what they are talking about. If they can show me that I am wrong by the code book, I can accept that, but to be "scared" of an inspector because they are "strict" is just weird.

Most of the inspectors I deal with dont know the code anyway.

~Matt


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

pudge565 said:


> I see it the same way. I voted "YES", however I think there should be a third option. The other option should be "depends on how the AHJ interprets the code"


I disagree. The less the AHJ gets to determine the better.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

No. The only electrical contact the switch yoke has with ground is through the head of the 6-32. Often, and we have seen it many times, the device is just barely snugged. You can usually move a device after the screws are tight, therefore the contact is lightly frictional. Will a current flow and operate the OCPD? Maybe, at first anyway. That connection is likely to arc during the event as well. If there were a nut behind the switch that snugged the device to the screw head, then it would be fine.


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I disagree. The less the AHJ gets to determine the better.


This is true. And my second post said I say definate YES. Should have added that the third option need not be there.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

The point is the NEC determined that only the metal screws connected to a grounded metal box is requirement enough. Not what we feel. The poll asked is it grounded and by NEC it is. Now what we actually think doesn't matter. I think that too many cables pulled thru a large enough drilled hole in a dwelling job is just fine and dandy, but what does it matter what I think, the NEC decides what is right and what is wrong. Same goes for many rules in the NEC. Code is code and so far as I know the code says that metal screws for switches connected to grounded boxes is enough and good to go. Now, just for the record, I run pigtails to my installed switches.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> The point is the NEC determined that only the metal screws connected to a grounded metal box is requirement enough. Not what we feel. The poll asked is it grounded and by NEC it is. Now what we actually think doesn't matter. I think that too many cables pulled thru a large enough drilled hole in a dwelling job is just fine and dandy, but what does it matter what I think, the NEC decides what is right and what is wrong. Same goes for many rules in the NEC. Code is code and so far as I know the code says that metal screws for switches connected to grounded boxes is enough and good to go. Now, just for the record, I run pigtails to my installed switches.


And that's great, as the NEC is a MINIMUM standard.

We not only run pigtails, we then tape up the entire device with no less than 3 wraps of vinyl tape.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> And that's great, as the NEC is a MINIMUM standard.


This is what is bizarre about this - the minimum statement for grounding and bonding in 240.4(A)5 is clear... And for most of us with no blinders would make a clear judgement of what a ground fault current path is, and is not. However - as it seems after reading a number of ROP's and CMP rejection statements - the CMP who handles this is not interested in the standard definition of ground fault current path as defined by another CMP who handles 250...

Example: (Should have posted this earier...)


> Submitter: Rod Belisle, NECA-IBEW Electrical Training Center
> Comment on Proposal No: 9-95
> Recommendation: “Accept” to read as follows:
> 
> ...


Since they feel that switches and receptacles are different devices... (Receptacle grounding is handled in 250) And that a yoke or plate if contacted by an energized conductor on a switch will act so differently that fault current would not be an issue. This flies in the face of all of 250... Which as we know would require the connections to be tight and not dependant on the fastener - loose or not... Even the few fasteners I can think of that would be considered a fault path allowed by 250 are listed assemblies... Reading through more of the CMP responses has me wonder if they feel that any grounding of a switch would be necessary at all if metal cover plates did not exist. Which would be further outside the box and even less likely to become energized. They seem unconcerned about the yoke itself.... They are about to pass a code that would not require grounding at all if the faceplate is proprietary and non-metallic. And I assume also if there were products with metal yokes that could only accept non-conductive screw-less plates they would be fine with it... As they see switches outside of the norms practiced in 250.





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> We not only run pigtails, we then tape up the entire device with no less than 3 wraps of vinyl tape.


I won't tape anything.... Unless I know it might be hot during rough to rock construction... Otherwise no.... Painters down the line are on their own...


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> You guys act like the inspectors are some higher power. If I feel an inspector is out of line, I ask for their supervisors phone number, and call them while they are standing in front of me. I wont get pushed around by someone who doesnt know what they are talking about. If they can show me that I am wrong by the code book, I can accept that, but to be "scared" of an inspector because they are "strict" is just weird.
> 
> Most of the inspectors I deal with dont know the code anyway.
> 
> ~Matt


To be clear I do not fear anyone... The two mentioned though are not the most personable people however - the words "power trip" do not even come close at times...


----------



## Gill (Nov 30, 2009)

Hi guys


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

Not Grounded. End of story.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

crazymurph said:


> Not Grounded. End of story.


 Exactly!!!!


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Gill said:


> Hi guys


 HEY!!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

e57 said:


> To be clear I do not fear anyone... The two mentioned though are not the most personable people however - the words "power trip" do not even come close at times...


I've only dealt with Carol twice actually, once when I did a really quick little morning job, my boss had called previously for the afternoon. She was there at 12:30 pm on the dot. I was almost done. I had three empty j-boxes with their whips stapled next to them and she had a hissy fit. "You're supposed to call for the inspection when you're done with the job!" She snorted and left.
The second was the next week, same job and she acted like she never had been there. Really creepy when she asked for the job card and complemented me on my work.

Got my cover up signed off today for a job i'm doing, Bryan Keil. 

What about Paul?:laughing: he seems pretty good really.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> You guys act like the inspectors are some higher power. If I feel an inspector is out of line, I ask for their supervisors phone number, and call them while they are standing in front of me. I wont get pushed around by someone who doesnt know what they are talking about. If they can show me that I am wrong by the code book, I can accept that, but to be "scared" of an inspector because they are "strict" is just weird.
> 
> Most of the inspectors I deal with dont know the code anyway.
> 
> ~Matt


i'm not scared of inspectors, i think they're comical.:laughing:
last thing i ever want to do is get in a pissing match with an inspector though.
yes sir, no maam, sign me off, thank you. oh and yes this IS a bedroom and yes it will be arc fault, yes the smoke detectors too.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Rudeboy said:


> i'm not scared of inspectors, i think they're comical.:laughing:
> last thing i ever want to do is get in a pissing match with an inspector though.
> yes sir, no maam, sign me off, thank you. oh and yes this IS a bedroom and yes it will be arc fault, yes the smoke detectors too.


 And yes, I will use these same AFCI breakers on the next house.:whistling2:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> We not only run pigtails, we then tape up the entire device with no less than 3 wraps of vinyl tape.


What a waste of tape.


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

The switch is grounded but not good enough so I still say no. 



Peter D said:


> What a waste of tape.


Right on! If it were in say a cut in or handi box then sure, but not your run of the mill 4-s w/mud ring.


----------



## Adam12 (May 28, 2008)

crazymurph said:


> Not Grounded. End of story.





william1978 said:


> Exactly!!!!


According to the code you are both wrong. :no:

And all 21 of the others.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

The switch is grounded.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

e57 said:


> This is what is bizarre about this - the minimum statement for grounding and bonding in 240.4(A)5 is clear... And for most of us with no blinders would make a clear judgement of what a ground fault current path is, and is not. However - as it seems after reading a number of ROP's and CMP rejection statements - the CMP who handles this is not interested in the standard definition of ground fault current path as defined by another CMP who handles 250...
> 
> Example: (Should have posted this earier...)
> Since they feel that switches and receptacles are different devices... (Receptacle grounding is handled in 250) And that a yoke or plate if contacted by an energized conductor on a switch will act so differently that fault current would not be an issue. This flies in the face of all of 250... Which as we know would require the connections to be tight and not dependant on the fastener - loose or not... Even the few fasteners I can think of that would be considered a fault path allowed by 250 are listed assemblies... Reading through more of the CMP responses has me wonder if they feel that any grounding of a switch would be necessary at all if metal cover plates did not exist. Which would be further outside the box and even less likely to become energized. They seem unconcerned about the yoke itself.... They are about to pass a code that would not require grounding at all if the faceplate is proprietary and non-metallic. And I assume also if there were products with metal yokes that could only accept non-conductive screw-less plates they would be fine with it... As they see switches outside of the norms practiced in 250.
> ...


Let's get down to brass tacks.

An outlet is not a switch. In your entire career, how many switches have you seen shorted out, or wires in a switchbox shorted to or energizing a yoke or the coverplate?

An outlet, on the other hand, is not the end use, it needs that jumper.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Peter D said:


> What a waste of tape.


Who cares I never bought a roll in my life.


----------



## Adam12 (May 28, 2008)

In some cases outlets don't need a jumper either. "Self grounding" is one case.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Who cares I never bought a roll in my life.


Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Rudeboy said:


> I've only dealt with Carol twice actually, once when I did a really quick little morning job, my boss had called previously for the afternoon. She was there at 12:30 pm on the dot. I was almost done. I had three empty j-boxes with their whips stapled next to them and she had a hissy fit. "You're supposed to call for the inspection when you're done with the job!" She snorted and left.
> The second was the next week, same job and she acted like she never had been there. Really creepy when she asked for the job card and complemented me on my work.
> 
> Got my cover up signed off today for a job i'm doing, Bryan Keil.
> ...


I'll sent you a PM for some inspector gossip.... :thumbsup:


----------

