Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Rick Burkman's Avatar
    Rick Burkman Guest

    Default Nice looking ground connection

    This is nice looking ground connection, but is it an acceptable ground connection?

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    No.

    Not even if it were copper wrapped around copper, but aluminum around copper - no way.

    That is just plain wrong in so many ways, the aluminum on copper is just the frosting on the cake.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #3
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Where is it coming from? Phone or cable company?

    Nevertheless, it is wrong unless there is a new exothermic welding process that is only visible on the backside of the loops......


  4. #4
    Rick Burkman's Avatar
    Rick Burkman Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    It's coming from a satellite receiver. I like the exothermic weld - I think I will use it in my report!


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Well, they did introduce a coil into that line, which, under the right conditions and with sufficient current (such as a lightning strike) could serve as a choke coil and stop the flow of other current through that ground conductor - just at the time that current is probably going to occur.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  6. #6
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    The connection in the picture still needs to comply with 250.70 which has some leeway based on the AHJ's opinion of "an equally substantial approved means"

    Since they are using aluminum, it has to be at least 8awg.

    I personally would not approve that method although wire wrapping communication wire is a preferred method over a punch down block but this is using a tighter wrap of copper over metal studs.


  7. #7
    Shannon Guinn's Avatar
    Shannon Guinn Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    The section escapes me at the moment (seems like 250.70something), but definitely a connector designed for dissimilar metals should be used.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    250.70 does not apply here (250.70 covers connection of grounding and bonding conductors to the electrodes), however, the main things to remember are:

    - dissimilar metals require appropriate connectors

    - wrapping on conductor around another is not a suitable connection

    - the connection must be made in an approved manner with a listed connection or terminal

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    When I was in Galveston a couple of months ago after Ike, I was looking at getting the power turned back on to structures. I saw lots of mc cable used for grounding the service panel. 200 amp with #12 mc cable grounding.

    I asked the chief electrical inspector about this...he said...let them go!.....Okkkayy!


  10. #10
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Jerry,

    This installation would fall under 810 if it is for television receiving equipment which it is since we were told it is for a satellite tv system

    This section points us back to 250.70 for compliance with the electrode connection.

    If you want to consider this CATV under 820, it still points you back to 250.70 for the electrode connection.

    Either way 810 or 820 point us directly to 250.70 for the connection requirements.

    I choose 810 for dish systems and 820 for CATV


  11. #11
    John Steinke's Avatar
    John Steinke Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Simple twisting is not, in and of itself, a bad way to connect things. industry standards generally use the phrase 'mechanical and electrically connected' in defining connections, and a "proper" twist would accomplish that.
    This, however, isn't mechanically secure; that one twisted wire can slide all over the place.

    Depending on exactly what the copper wire is for, it may not be allowed to splice it.

    There is still the matter of dissimilar metals. Related to this is the proximity to the actual dirt. We can't see it, but you're not allowed aluminum within 18" of the dirt.

    Of greater concern to me is the penetration of the TGI by the conduit. One would need to measure to be sure, but it looks like they've removed too much material, and made the hole too close to the flange. The APA has the specs for TGI's, and other 'engineered wood' products.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Remas View Post
    This section points us back to 250.70 for compliance with the electrode connection.

    If you want to consider this CATV under 820, it still points you back to 250.70 for the electrode connection.

    Either way 810 or 820 point us directly to 250.70 for the connection requirements.
    Jeff,

    The difference is, 250.70 covers connections to the grounding electrode only, not connections to the grounding electrode conductors.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Quote Originally Posted by John Steinke View Post
    Simple twisting is not, in and of itself, a bad way to connect things.
    John,

    Correct, when the conductors are twisted "together", not when one is twisted around the others. Then, as you said, it is not mechanically attached.

    Of greater concern to me is the penetration of the TGI by the conduit.
    TJI

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  14. #14
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Jerry, Point well taken and understood.

    I think that my point was that 250.70 is actually more liberal than 250.64(C) therefore giving more realistic options.

    Probably the best attachment requirement would be 250.8 which more than likely truly covers what is needed. If you connect to 250.70 or 250.8 then you easily meet the connection requirements.

    This particular situation does not give you any specific and detailed direction and I can see a tweaking of the code for the next cycle.

    All of my answers are based on the 2005 since we are not in the 08 cycle yet in our state.


  15. #15
    Shannon Guinn's Avatar
    Shannon Guinn Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Jeff,

    The difference is, 250.70 covers connections to the grounding electrode only, not connections to the grounding electrode conductors.
    My thinking Jerry (other than being pretty darn close for off the top of my head) was that since this was going to be supposedly for (TV) purposes, shouldn't it have been bonded to the electrode itself instead of the conductor? I have seen this done both ways. But for connecting to the electrode itself is 250.70(3), of course I don't have to tell you that, this is more for me and my constant need to hone.

    But since we're on the subject, any thoughts as to which would be a better method, to the GEC or electrode?

    I remember a few years back, when cable and satellite systems had their own little ground rod and it wouldn't be connected at all to the house ground. Looking back as the saying goes,"We've come a long way baby".


  16. #16
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    I think NEC 2008 makes this a little easier to handle.

    This company has been advertising this product a lot:

    Intersystem Bonding Termination


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Nice looking ground connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Shannon Guinn View Post
    But since we're on the subject, any thoughts as to which would be a better method, to the GEC or electrode?
    .

    Shannon,

    Anyplace on the grounding system should be acceptable, provided all the grounding conductors are appropriately sized. As the 2008 NEC states:

    810.21 Grounding Conductors — Receiving Stations.
    - (2) In Buildings or Structures with Grounding Means. If the building or structure served has no intersystem bonding termination, the grounding conductor shall be connected to the nearest accessible location on the following:
    - - (1) The building or structure grounding electrode system as covered in 250.50
    - - (2) The grounded interior metal water piping systems, within 1.52 m (5 ft) from its point of entrance to the building, as covered in 250.52
    - - (3) The power service accessible means external to the building, as covered in 250.94
    - - (4) The metallic power service raceway
    - - (5) The service equipment enclosure, or
    - - (6) The grounding electrode conductor or the grounding electrode conductor metal enclosures
    - - A bonding device intended to provide a termination point for the grounding conductor (intersystem bonding) shall not interfere with the opening of an equipment enclosure. A bonding device shall be mounted on non-removable parts. A bonding device shall not be mounted on a door or cover even if the door or cover is non-removable.

    I remember a few years back, when cable and satellite systems had their own little ground rod and it wouldn't be connected at all to the house ground. Looking back as the saying goes,"We've come a long way baby".
    Actually, those were never allowed to be installed that way, they were simply "overlooked" as no one thought about them. Then some people said 'Oh, you do know those are required to be grounded too, right?', so they started grounding them to those little pencil-like rods they stuck into the ground, then someone said 'Oh, that's how you are grounding them? Don't you know that when you ground them you are required to use a proper size ground rod?', so the proper size ground rods started to get used, then they said 'Don't you know that all ground rods must be bonded together? Do I have to spell out each step for you?' ... Yeah, the NEC did have to spell each step.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •