On Oct 1, 12:52 pm, bud-- wrote:
Poor w_ seems to have a significant mental impairment. Virtually
everything he said was wrong. Perhaps the institution should limit his
use of the internet.

Bud promoted for plug-in protector manufacturers. He will not admit
that. He follows me everywhere to turn discussions nasty. He will do
this here. He has no technical experience. But as long as he can
attack, then many will only see the attacks - not see facts. Bud is
one of the last people I would want to install wiring. It does not
matter what reality is. His purpose here is to attack me. Anywhere I
post, he will immediately follow with attacks. He is not honest; he
does not have technical experience; but he knows dirty politics. Do
you believe a politician - or the facts? Many will make the mistake
of listening to the one who insults. Many will make the mistake of
confusing credibility with Bud.

In article . com, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 12:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Tom - please don't attempt to lecture me on what the Code says, when you
clearly don't understand it yourself.

What part of "all ... that are present ... shall be bonded together" are you
having trouble understanding?

This whole thing started with your idiotic statement that a metal underground
water pipe was not required to be used as a grounding electrode, remember?

Now go *read* the Code, and STFU.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

w_tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 12:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Tom - please don't attempt to lecture me on what the Code says, when you
clearly don't understand it yourself.

So those millions of fuel oil tanks buried outside homes to provide
fuel for winter heat - all tanks are code violations?

Doug and I both answered that. The NEC does not require tanks to be part
of the grounding electrode system.

A tank that meets paragraph
(A)(7) as an electrode also is not 'present' according to the code.

If only you could read and think.

The code requires items in “250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6)” be bonded. I
realize it is difficult math for you, but 7 is past 6 and so tanks in
(A)(7) are not required by the NEC to be part of the grounding electrode
system.


If word definitions were so obvious, then explain why a rope does
not bond two items together. Code says two items must be bonded.
They look bonded together to me.

Well beyond stupid. Perhaps your meds should be increased.
If it is serious point perhaps you could look at the definition of
"bonded" in the NEC chapter 100.


Please learn the code
before lecturing others.

Please learn to read.
Then learn to think.
Then learn the code before lecturing others.

–
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 12:52 pm, bud-- wrote:
Poor w_ seems to have a significant mental impairment. Virtually
everything he said was wrong. Perhaps the institution should limit his
use of the internet.

Bud promoted for plug-in protector manufacturers. He will not admit
that.

Anyone who corrects w_’s bullcrap apparently has an ulterior motive. My
only connection with suppressors is I have several. Poor w_ has to try
to discredit opponents because he has no valid arguments.

He has no technical experience. But as long as he can
attack, then many will only see the attacks - not see facts. Bud is
one of the last people I would want to install wiring.

Already covered ****head. I am an electrical engineer and master
electrician.

It does not
matter what reality is.

It does not matter to w_ what reality is because he has minimal
connection with it.


His purpose here is to attack me. Anywhere I
post, he will immediately follow with attacks.

When I see you spreading bull**** I point it out. Your post before last
had virtually nothing that was correct. No one agrees with you in this
thread. You are always challenged by someone in this newsgroup on your
idiotic comments on water pipe.

A whole post full of attacks - no facts. Perhaps you could stick to the
facts. That is the real facts, not your delusional facts.

–-
bud--

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, w_tom wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:15 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
No, not unless the connection to the water pipe is within 5 feet of the
entrance.
...

Ground rod, and connection to the metal water pipe within 5' of the point
at which it enters the building.
Code demands that the AC electric have a proper connection to earth
ground. Any one of the electrodes in paragraphs two through seven are

Actually, it's one through six: 250.52(A)(1) through 250.52(A)(6).

sufficient. The electrode defined in paragraph one (water pipe) is
not sufficient.

Code *also* demands that all of those electrodes be bonded together.
Assume that John Ross was correct - that ALL earthing electrodes must
be connected.

They must be, per Article 250.50 -- you really ought to read it some time.

Then every steel I-beam concreted in earth must be
bonded to the breaker box.

False. Code requires the "metal frame of the building or structure" to be
bonded to the grounding electrode system. It does not require every individual
component of the frame to be so bonded.

Water well casing must be bonded to AC breaker box.

False. There is no requirement that it be bonded separately from the pipe(s)
it is connected to.

All rebar inside concrete footing must be bonded. Rebar
inside any concrete basement floor must be bonded.

False. Rebar less than 1/2" in diameter, or less than 20' in length, is not
required to be bonded. There also is no requirement that individual pieces of
rebar be separately bonded to the grounding electrode system; Code
specifically permits them to be bonded to _each_other_ "by the usual steel tie
wires or other effective means."

Any steel plate buried in earth must be bonded.

False. Again, as with rebar, there are size requirements of which you appear
completely ignorant.

Any "other local metal underground
system or structure such as piping systems and underground
tanks" (quoted from paragraph seven) must also be connected to breaker
box.

Ahh, finally you got one correct.

According to John, if any of those six items exist, then they
also must be bonded to the breaker box.

According to the NEC.
Why are bonding wires not attached to every of six items?

Probably because you, or someone who listened to your ignorant ravings,
installed the grounding electrode system.

Because
Doug Miller is wrong. The breaker box only needs one earthing
electrode that conforms to paragraphs two through seven.

Try again, bozo. Yes, one such electrode is sufficient. But if there are *two*
such electrodes present, they must *both* be used as grounding electrodes.

Code says
that any electrode used for earthing must be bonded together to form a
single earth grounding system. Any of those other six electrodes not
being used for earthing need not be connected to the breaker box - in
direct contradiction to Doug Miller and the naive salesman Bud.

Absolutely false. You simply do not have the first clue what you are talking
about. Code specifically and clearly says that ALL such electrodes that are
present SHALL BE bonded together. If one of those electrodes is present and
*not* being used for grounding, that's a clear Code violation.

Now go get yourself a copy of the 2005 Code, read Article 250.50, and STFU.

Code says that any electrode connected for earth must also be bonded
to the breaker box. If used to earth the telephone line protector,
then that electrode must also be bonded to AC electric box. If cable
TV is earthed to any of those electrodes, then that electrode also
must bond to breaker box. Any electrode used as earth ground must be
bonded together. Listed are six earthing electrodes that would not be
connected to breaker box because nothing was using them for earth
ground. According to Doug Miller, all six of those electrodes also
must be connected by 6 AWG wire.

No, not according to me. According to the National Electrical Code.

Try reading it some time.
If you want to bond the 'first five feet of water pipe' to breaker
box, then by all means do so. But that is beyond what code would
require of John Ross.

False again. Metal water pipe is required to be bonded as part of the
grounding electrode system. Water pipe more than 5' from the point at which it
enters the building is not permitted to be used as part of the grounding
electrode system -- therefore, the bonding must be within the first five feet.

What is most clearly required:

What is most clearly required is for you to read the Code, before you try to
talk about what it means.
A metal underground tank is an earthing electrode according to
paragraph seven. But if not being used by anything as an earth
ground,

.. then it's a Code violation: it's present, but it's not bonded.

then AC breaker box also need not be bonded to that
underground tank ... in direct contradiction to what Doug Miller and
naive salesman Bud have posted.

What part of "ALL ... that are present ... SHALL BE BONDED TOGETHER" are you
having such a hard time understanding??

Doug
Wrestling with a pig is a waste of time. You'll just get filthy rotten
dirty and the pig enjoys it. Or as someone else here has pointed out
trolls cannot be shouted down but they can be killed off by starving
them of the attention that they crave.
--
Tom Horne

On Oct 1, 3:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
This whole thing started with your idiotic statement that a metal underground
water pipe was not required to be used as a grounding electrode, remember?

No wonder Doug Miller does not know the code. You still don't
comprehend what I posted? Posted was something completely different
- that a water pipe earth ground is insufficient for earthing. Even
if earthed by the water pipe, building still requires another earth
ground to meet post 1990 code requirements. Doug - why do you forget
what I posted - and also completely misunderstand paragraphs from the
code. Why do you misrepresent what I posted just so you can argue?

At least Doug Miller is conceding that other electrodes - ie
underground tanks - need not be connected to breaker box.

It should be obvious to John Ross that your electrical knowledge
comes only from reading - not from industry experience. You did not
even correctly read what I had posted.

John Ross requires earthing. One earth ground rod close to AND
wired directly to his breaker box provides sufficient earthing - would
meet code. Any other utility that is also earthed must also connect
to this same earthing 'system'. That earthing to provide human
safety (as defined by code) also provides surge protection.

Why does the telephone line need earth ground? The telco installed
(for free) protector will not provide surge protection without a short
connection to earth ground.

Meanwhile, volts500 demonstrates other grounding that are now
required for human safety in http://tinyurl.com/hkjq . These
simple solutions also should be considered by John Ross. More
recommendations that Doug Miller would have conveniently forgotten or
not comprehended?

In article om, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 3:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
This whole thing started with your idiotic statement that a metal underground
water pipe was not required to be used as a grounding electrode, remember?

No wonder Doug Miller does not know the code. You still don't
comprehend what I posted?

You still don't comprehend that what you posted was a load of nonsense.

Posted was something completely different
- that a water pipe earth ground is insufficient for earthing.

You wrote that the metal water pipe is not required to be bonded as a
grounding electrode.

Even
if earthed by the water pipe, building still requires another earth
ground to meet post 1990 code requirements.

True -- but not relevant.

Doug - why do you forget
what I posted - and also completely misunderstand paragraphs from the
code. Why do you misrepresent what I posted just so you can argue?

Why are you lying about what you posted?

In this post

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
repair/msg/960f7c0fae366943?dmode=source

You wrote "If using any other earthing electrode, then
a water pipe earthing electrode is not required."

Remember that this is in the context of an original post which asked about
adding more grounding electrodes, _in_addition_to_ the metal water pipe that
he already has.

And that metal water pipe is *required* by Code to be bonded as part of the
grounding electrode system.

At least Doug Miller is conceding that other electrodes - ie
underground tanks - need not be connected to breaker box.

I acknowledged my mistake with respect to the underground tanks. We're still
waiting for you to realize, and admit, that you were wrong about everything
else.

What part of "all ... that are present ... shall be bonded together..." are
you having trouble understanding?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ACgMi.29665$jC5.25183@trnddc04, Tom Horne wrote:

Doug
Wrestling with a pig is a waste of time. You'll just get filthy rotten
dirty and the pig enjoys it. Or as someone else here has pointed out
trolls cannot be shouted down but they can be killed off by starving
them of the attention that they crave.

True enough -- but when the pig is posting things like "If using any other
earthing electrode, then a water pipe earthing electrode is not required" the
pig *needs* to be shouted down.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:

This panel (there is only one at house) has NO ground bar--grounds and
neutrals are on the "neutral" bar. So he is proposing just adding
these new ground connections there as well. Is that OK? If they are
bonded together anyway, I can't see how it could hurt, but as you know
this is all new to me.

That is standard in service panels.

Are you saying it's standard to bond together in service panel or it's
common to just have the "neutral" bar and put grounds and neutrals on
it? I was thinking that they may have just made them like this all
those years ago, but now have the two bars in newer ones. But it's
good to know at least ONE thing seems to be clear cut that it is OK to
do. I was worried that would be a whole new can of worms.

thanks
--
John

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:15 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


No, not unless the connection to the water pipe is within 5 feet of the
entrance.

I disagree with Doug on this point. If the connection to the water pipe
was code compliant when installed - connection used to be allowed other
than within 5 ft - the installation is OK now unless modifications are
made that trigger new construction requirements.

IMO local inspection authority is likely to regard the installation of a
second grounding electrode as a mod that will trigger new construction
requirements -- but the OP should check with local inspection authority.

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

--
John

In article om, John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Short answer:

You can splice it, if you do it the right way [see (1) below], or you can
connect the existing conductor to a busbar instead of the pipe, and connect a
jumper between the busbar and the pipe within 5' of the entrance.

Long answer:

"Grounding electrode conductors shall be installed in one continuous length
without a splice or joint, except as permitted in (1) through (4):
(1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type
connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic
welding process.
(2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be bonded together to form a
grounding electrode conductor.
(3) Bonding jumper(s) from grounding electrode(s) and grounding electrode
conductor(s) shall be permitted to be connected to an aluminum or copper
busbar not less than 6mm x 50mm. The busbar shall be securely fastened and
shall be installed in an accessible location. Connections shall be made by a
listed connector or by the exothermic welding process.
(4) [installation req'mts for aluminum busbars]"

[2005 NEC, Article 250.64(C)]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

John Ross wrote:

bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:
This panel (there is only one at house) has NO ground bar--grounds and
neutrals are on the "neutral" bar. So he is proposing just adding
these new ground connections there as well. Is that OK? If they are
bonded together anyway, I can't see how it could hurt, but as you know
this is all new to me.
That is standard in service panels.

Are you saying it's standard to bond together in service panel

Bonding together is required. It is almost always done in the service panel.

or it's
common to just have the "neutral" bar and put grounds and neutrals on
it? I was thinking that they may have just made them like this all
those years ago, but now have the two bars in newer ones.

Just a neutral bar also used for grounds is common.

--
bud--

In article , bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:

bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:
This panel (there is only one at house) has NO ground bar--grounds and
neutrals are on the "neutral" bar. So he is proposing just adding
these new ground connections there as well. Is that OK? If they are
bonded together anyway, I can't see how it could hurt, but as you know
this is all new to me.
That is standard in service panels.

Are you saying it's standard to bond together in service panel

Bonding together is required. It is almost always done in the service panel.

or it's
common to just have the "neutral" bar and put grounds and neutrals on
it? I was thinking that they may have just made them like this all
those years ago, but now have the two bars in newer ones.

Just a neutral bar also used for grounds is common.

To clarify -- the reason this is acceptable in a service panel is that Code
requires the ground and neutral to be bonded together at/in the service panel,
so it doesn't matter whether two bars are used, or one -- electrically, it's
all one continuous piece anyway. Subpanels require separate bars *not* bonded
together.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

John Ross wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:15 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

No, not unless the connection to the water pipe is within 5 feet of the
entrance.
I disagree with Doug on this point. If the connection to the water pipe
was code compliant when installed - connection used to be allowed other
than within 5 ft - the installation is OK now unless modifications are
made that trigger new construction requirements.
IMO local inspection authority is likely to regard the installation of a
second grounding electrode as a mod that will trigger new construction
requirements -- but the OP should check with local inspection authority.

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

--
John

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.
--
Tom Horne

In article 8qFMi.23588$Im1.3537@trnddc01, Tom Horne wrote:
John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old wire
connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a jumper
from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 8qFMi.23588$Im1.3537@trnddc01, Tom Horne wrote:
John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old wire
connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a jumper
from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.

I'm glad you posted that. I thought busbars only went in panels, so I
didn't quite get your first response regarding that.

Do I understand that you are saying that in the crawlspace where the
current bonding wire is attached to the pipe, you can install a busbar
right there? How would you secure such a thing (can it just be
attached to a joist).

If above is correct, then you mean the old wire can be put on the
busbar with a clamp (would that be similar to the one's they use to
attach to pipe where it just screws on--splitbolt if I recall?). Then
take the new wire and also clamp to busbar and then run to withing 5
feet.

As far as Tom Horne's comment about the crimp connector, which method
is easier or less labor intensive for electrician? I don't know what a
crimp connector is, but it *sounds* like it would be a lot easier than
the busbar, but again I am not sure what that involves.

But as far as that busbar method. Would that be considered a permitted
connection point to attach the receptacle ground wires? If so, that
could be very advantageous to do it that way.
--
John

bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:

bud-- wrote:
John Ross wrote:
This panel (there is only one at house) has NO ground bar--grounds and
neutrals are on the "neutral" bar. So he is proposing just adding
these new ground connections there as well. Is that OK? If they are
bonded together anyway, I can't see how it could hurt, but as you know
this is all new to me.
That is standard in service panels.

Are you saying it's standard to bond together in service panel

Bonding together is required. It is almost always done in the service panel.

or it's
common to just have the "neutral" bar and put grounds and neutrals on
it? I was thinking that they may have just made them like this all
those years ago, but now have the two bars in newer ones.

Just a neutral bar also used for grounds is common.

I had talked to an electrician on the phone and he said something like
"oh, those old panels just had a neutral bar and they put the grounds
on there too. That is not good, especially for eletronic devices to be
protected." He then went on to say he would install a ground busbar in
panel.

This is what I am dealing with! If it wasn't for you guys, I would
have had some pretty off the wall things done to my electric service.
It seems like I am at a point where I know more than they do about
this. This is truly backwards, but with all the help here, I will know
when I find an electrician who knows what he is doing. Ususally, the
response is "hire a professional", but in my case, it's "go to NG and
THEN be informed enough to hire a professional (if one exists in my
city).

Anyway, thanks to everyone who is participating in this thread. It is
VERY helpful to me.
--
John

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 8qFMi.23588$Im1.3537@trnddc01, Tom Horne wrote:
John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old wire
connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a jumper
from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.


That is only true if all of the other Grounding Electrode Conductors
also come together at that grounding buss bar. I know that the code
does not specifically say that but most inspectors will reject it as an
unlawful splice if it is not in fact a single common grounding point.
--
Tom Horne

In article 8WPMi.4429$P06.3535@trnddc05, Tom Horne wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article 8qFMi.23588$Im1.3537@trnddc01, Tom Horne
wrote:
John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old
wire
connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a
jumper
from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.


That is only true if all of the other Grounding Electrode Conductors
also come together at that grounding buss bar. I know that the code
does not specifically say that but most inspectors will reject it as an
unlawful splice if it is not in fact a single common grounding point.

Well, that shouldn't be too hard for him to manage, since right now he just
has the one (to the water pipe, more than 5' from the entrance) and he's
planning to add one more -- easy enough to tie them together at one point.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, John Ross wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article 8qFMi.23588$Im1.3537@trnddc01, Tom Horne
wrote:
John Ross wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing
this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then
splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector.

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old
wire
connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a
jumper
from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.

I'm glad you posted that. I thought busbars only went in panels, so I
didn't quite get your first response regarding that.

Do I understand that you are saying that in the crawlspace where the
current bonding wire is attached to the pipe, you can install a busbar
right there? How would you secure such a thing (can it just be
attached to a joist).

As I read 205.64(C)(3), yes, you can install a busbar right there. There does
not appear to be a requirement to have it in a box; it's grounded, after all,
so it hardly matters if someone touches it. To attach it, I believe I'd just
use wood screws into a joist -- but you might want to run that past your local
inspection authority.

If above is correct, then you mean the old wire can be put on the
busbar with a clamp (would that be similar to the one's they use to
attach to pipe where it just screws on--splitbolt if I recall?). Then
take the new wire and also clamp to busbar and then run to withing 5
feet.

Code says connections may be made "with a listed connector" which I assume
would include the terminal screws on a busbar -- but probably not a clamp,
unless that clamp is listed for use with that bar.

As far as Tom Horne's comment about the crimp connector, which method
is easier or less labor intensive for electrician? I don't know what a
crimp connector is, but it *sounds* like it would be a lot easier than
the busbar, but again I am not sure what that involves.

Either one should be fairly easy for an electrician to install.

But as far as that busbar method. Would that be considered a permitted
connection point to attach the receptacle ground wires? If so, that
could be very advantageous to do it that way.

The receptacle ground wires may, as far as I know, be attached anywhere on the
grounding electrode system. That would include a busbar.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, John Ross wrote:

I had talked to an electrician on the phone and he said something like
"oh, those old panels just had a neutral bar and they put the grounds
on there too. That is not good, especially for eletronic devices to be
protected." He then went on to say he would install a ground busbar in
panel.

It certainly does no harm, except to your wallet, for him to install a ground
busbar in the service panel -- but it does no good either: since Code requires
ground and neutral to be bonded together in the service panel, electrically
they're all one bar anyway.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.