Grounding question

Reply

  #1  
Old 10-07-02, 08:03 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Grounding question

Here is an answer to a post and I would like a clarification. Maybe I am missing something.
The only way to ground this is to run a wire from the outlet you wish to ground back to the panel (or indirectly to your panel by attaching to the same spot at the entrance of your cold water supply where the panel is connected). You can run one wire and daisy chain the outlets if you desire. How difficult this is depends on how far away your panel is and how skilled you are at fishing wires. This is probably beyond the skills of most electrical novices.

If your laundry room is properly grounded (and that's a really big "if"), you could connect the new grounding to the laundry room grounding.

Here is what I thought. I thought I recall in a previous post that you were not allowed to daisy chain an additional ground?? I thought you had to run a wire from each individual each duplex seperate back to the panel.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-07-02, 08:08 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
sberry, you seem very intent on getting a response. The only thing I can tell you is that I find no support in the code for your position. I'm not saying it's not there, but I suggest you look for it.
 
  #3  
Old 10-07-02, 10:24 PM
FREDDYG_001
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
sberry27, Part of your question is in article 250.120 Equipment Grounding Conductor Installation. (C) Equipment Grounding Conductors Smaller Than 6 AWG.



Fred
 
  #4  
Old 10-07-02, 11:21 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks Fred,,, but I dont have a code book here. I just remember somewhere about someone asking about replacing 2 wire outlets with 3 prong and the options were to use a gfci or to run another wire,,, but that wire had to go to the panel,,, not to be hooked to other ground wires. I know if the grounds are running in the same cable or raceway they are to be connected together but I am relying on memory here,,, but it seems that it was quoted that it was allowable to run from a single wire from a single duplex back to the panel. I could have misinterpreted something also. When I get to the jobber I intend to buy a new code book. I looked back and tried to find the original post but I think its long past. I think it was in a long string about using bx jacket as grounding or something,, as per WG. It might have been in another post about someone wanting to use a water pipe for the same thing.
 
  #5  
Old 10-08-02, 09:34 AM
FREDDYG_001
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
sperry27, If its the same post from several months ago. The poster had just moved into a new house and had several non-gounding type receptacles and wanted to change them to the grounding type and there wore no grounds in the outlet boxes. I told the poster about article 406.3(D)Replacements.(3)Nongounding-Type Receptacles.(C) as an option.


Fred
 
  #6  
Old 10-08-02, 09:50 AM
FREDDYG_001
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
sperry27, The option was a GFCI installed to feed the other receptacles downstream.


Fred
 
  #7  
Old 10-08-02, 01:04 PM
hornetd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 695
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Retrofit EGCs

Originally posted by sberry27
Thanks Fred,,, but I don't have a code book here. I just remember somewhere about someone asking about replacing 2 wire outlets with 3 prong and the options were to use a gfci or to run another wire,,, but that wire had to go to the panel,,, not to be hooked to other ground wires. I know if the grounds are running in the same cable or raceway they are to be connected together but I am relying on memory here,,, but it seems that it was quoted that it was allowable to run from a single wire from a single duplex back to the panel. I could have misinterpreted something also. When I get to the jobber I intend to buy a new code book. I looked back and tried to find the original post but I think its long past. I think it was in a long string about using bx jacket as grounding or something,, as per WG. It might have been in another post about someone wanting to use a water pipe for the same thing.
There is no restriction in the language you are referring to that would prevent you from using one conductor to ground several outlets. Any fault imposed on the conductor would be limited by the circuits OCPD. As long as the conductor is sized according to the table on EGC sizing there is no problem. This can even be taken one step further. A single conductor that is sized for the largest OCPD supplying the circuits can serve as the EGC for multiple circuits as is often done in multiple circuit raceway and cable installations. The thing that is worth remembering about these conductors is that since they are often run by a different pathway than the circuits current carrying conductors the impedance of the resultant grounding pathway may be high enough to delay the operation of the OCPD.
--
Tom
 
  #8  
Old 10-08-02, 08:42 PM
Master Electrician
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 300
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Grounding Non-grounded Outlets:

If I could jump in hope no one minds.

It has been determined a non-grounding receptacle can be replaced with a grounding receptacle 406.3(D)(1).

The grounding conductor shall be connected per 250.130(C).
This states it can go to:
(1). Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system as described in 250.50
Above: we can use only the first 5' a metal underground water pipe. Metal frame of the building. Concrete-encased electrode. Ground ring. Rod and pipe electrode. Plate electrode. Other local metal underground systems. Other than underground gas pipes, or Aluminum electrodes.
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
Above: The grounding conductor that connects every thing making the grounding electrode system.
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch circuit originates
Above: Where the last overcurrent protection is located.
(4) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor within the service equipment enclosure
Above: The main service where the grounded and grounding conductor is bonded together.
(5) For ungrounded systems, the grounding terminal bar within the service equipment enclosure
Above: The main panel where the grounding conductor is located.

250.130(C) is the rule allowing the grounding conductor to be ran separately than the circuit conductors.

250.122 States: if the grounding conductor is of a wire type it shall not be smaller then 14 copper, or 12 aluminum.

250.120(C) states: if the wire is smaller than #6 it shall be protected from physical damage, unless ran in hollow spaces of the walls.

250.118 States: it can be copper, Aluminum, copper clad, solid, stranded, insulated, bare, and in the form of a wire in any shape.

250.120. Is how the grounding conductor would be sized.

Now this is going to get conversation. 250.120(C) states: (RECEPTICAL) Singular. Not plural. The grounding conductor to be installed separately for each 3 wire replacement receptacle to originate at any place allowed by what was stated above.
 

Last edited by aphares; 10-11-02 at 06:51 PM.
  #9  
Old 10-08-02, 10:50 PM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Sberry, the statement of no equipment grounding conductor is pertaining in your mind to if you use the option of using a GFI in place of a grounding conductor while installing a branch circuit extension.

As for daisy chaining more than one receptacle using that one equipment grounding conductor using NEC 250.130.C I came up with the following;

The seperate grounding wire allowed to be installed to serve a replaced two prong receptacle to a three prong receptacle is as aphares stated one receptacle.

The limitation of only one receptacle is this is a specialty rule concerning the one receptacle not receptacles. There is no plural in this sentence or rule when it comes to more than one receptacle.

I would read it that you must follow 250.134.B demanding that all equipment grounding conductors are contained in the same cable or conduit with the other circuit conductors. The only excpetion to this refers back to 250.130.C that again does not include the plural of receptacles.

I came to this conclusion by trying to use the term branch circuit extension thinking maybe we could take the added equipment grounindg conductor to be allowed to daisy chain from that first converted receptacle using 250.130.C. If you read the handbook commentary and look at the picture, I could not make that attempt hold water.

I read it same as aphares the word is receptacle not receptacles.

Hope this helps

Wg
 
  #10  
Old 10-08-02, 11:31 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
So,, If I understand this right,,, each duplex would need its own wire back to the panel. Is this right?
 
  #11  
Old 10-08-02, 11:33 PM
Master Electrician
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 300
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
yes.
 
  #12  
Old 10-09-02, 06:16 AM
hornetd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 695
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by sberry27

"So,, If I understand this right,,, each duplex would need its own wire back to the panel. Is this right?"

No that is not correct. A single such conductor can serve multiple receptacles. The code language is quite clear in its inclusion of branch circuit extensions. A branch circuit extension can contain multiple receptacles.
Some of the original work on retrofitting EGCs was done by the Ground Electronics Engineering and Installation Agency of the US Air Force. I participated in some of that work as an electrician trainee. Single number four braided conductors were run on the tops of baseboards in world war two barracks in order to ground all of the receptacles. The number four sizing was because it was the smallest size that could be run exposed. This is the same principal that is used with other EGCs.

The Code Making Panel (CMP) would not have imposed a restriction of a single receptacle per conductor without some rationale. There is no reason that a single conductor attached to the grounding terminal of multiple receptacles would not work just as well as one for each receptacle. The impedance of a separate conductor is no better than that of a common EGC under a fault condition so why would separate conductors be required. The vulnerability to physical damage is addressed by requiring the protection for those conductors smaller than number four that are run exposed.

This issue came up during an inspection in Davis California years ago and the inspector called the NFPA engineering office for an opinion. They pointed out that since an circuit extension can contain several outlets that one conductor could serve as the EGC for several devices. Claiming that it is just another opinion ignores the fact that they are staff to the CMP that wrote the rule and were present during the discussion and debate. Use your heads guys & galls. If a single raceway can serve as the EGC for all of the conductors in that raceway and a single EGC in multi conductor cable can do the same then why would the CMP require the separate EGCs on retrofit. Requiring separate EGCs would deter the addition of EGCs to existing installations and that is very unlikely to be the intent of the CMP.
--
Tom
 
  #13  
Old 10-09-02, 07:14 AM
Master Electrician
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 300
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Tom this could be true, but can you back up any of this information? Ifso I will change my thoughts about the whole thing. And believe me I would like to.
 

Last edited by aphares; 10-09-02 at 08:32 AM.
  #14  
Old 10-09-02, 09:52 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thats why I ask those with minds greater than my own,, no wonder I am confused most of the time. The only reason I was under the impression that it need to be individual was that I thought I remember WG or J Nelson quote it and I thought it be a bit strange so I ask for clarification then,,, thats why it came up again,,, I thought I had it answered. Not trying to put anyone on a spot,, Was just curious.
 
  #15  
Old 10-10-02, 07:52 AM
hornetd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 695
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by sberry27
"That's why I ask those with minds greater than my own,, no wonder I am confused most of the time. The only reason I was under the impression that it need to be individual was that I thought I remember WG or J Nelson quote it and I thought it be a bit strange so I ask for clarification then,,, that's why it came up again,,, I thought I had it answered. Not trying to put anyone on a spot,, Was just curious."

I have made my argument as convincingly as I know how. What more could I say that would not be just another recitation of my position. The only way I know of to resolve the question definitively is to file a request for formal interpretation.
--
Tom
 
  #16  
Old 10-10-02, 09:32 PM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
90.2.B specifically exempts ships and governmental agencies from control by the NEC.

What the armed forces do in a ship etc. has nothing to do with the rules of hte NEC.

Hornted, I suspect that Aphares is asking for the quote in the NEC rules that says you can daisy chain this equipment grounding conductor ran separate from the branch circuit conductors as this exception that is being used allows one concerted receptacle.

Teh NEC specifically requires that equipment grounding conductor to be in the same cable, trench or conduit. Then this existing rule applies to converting a receptacle not receptacles in this manner.

I am curious where you found the wording in the NEC rules that made it quite clear that you can daisy chain more than one receptacle in a converted existing two prong to three prong receptacle conversion or branch circuit extenshion adding one receptacle using the same rule.

I can see nothing clear about the rule and found nothing that implies what you are suggesting that is accepted practice in engineering practices on governmental ships.

Now the question raised about the jumper in the hot and cold water pipes I too agree with John and aphares that this jumper is bonding eqiupment not pertaining to grounding electrode systems. Even water pipes that are not touching ground at all also must be bonded as one entity to the equipment grounding system but can not be used as a grounding electrode system because it lacks the 10' of contact with earth yet they still have to be bonded with the hot and cold water lines jumpered together as a bonding jumper not a main bonding jumper.

Hope this helps

Wg
 
  #17  
Old 10-11-02, 08:24 AM
hornetd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 695
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
branch circuit extensions.

Originally posted by Wgoodrich
"SNIP

Hornted, I suspect that Aphares is asking for the quote in the NEC rules that says you can daisy chain this equipment grounding conductor ran separate from the branch circuit conductors as this exception that is being used allows one concerted receptacle.

The NEC specifically requires that equipment grounding conductor to be in the same cable, trench or conduit. Then this existing rule applies to converting a receptacle not receptacles in this manner.

I am curious where you found the wording in the NEC rules that made it quite clear that you can daisy chain more than one receptacle in a converted existing two prong to three prong receptacle conversion or branch circuit extension adding one receptacle using the same rule.

I can see nothing clear about the rule and found nothing that implies what you are suggesting that is accepted practice in engineering practices on governmental ships."

Step one. I have no opinion on any practice that is beyond the scope of the NEC including water craft.

Were are you finding the language that says a branch circuit extension will only contain a single receptacle outlet? That assumption is illogical on it's face. If the use of the singular form of receptacle had the effect you imagine then you could not even use a duplex receptacle with that method of grounding. It is basic law that all that is not forbidden is allowed. The maxim of the law is that silence is consent. Since the section does not say that a branch circuit extension may serve only one receptacle it can in fact serve several.

Some people who participate here really hate to have their views questioned. They seem to think that saying the same thing over and over makes it true. What I said earlier still applies. Only a formal interpretation from the code making panel that is responsible for article 250 will settle the question.
--
Tom
 

Last edited by hornetd; 10-11-02 at 08:54 PM.
  #18  
Old 10-12-02, 08:00 AM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Hornted, below is a copy of the NEC rule that forbids the separated equipment grounding conductor except when exchanging a 2 prong receptacle to a 3 prong receptacle [not singular] or adding a receptacle as a branch circuit extension from a two wire branch circuit that you said does not exist. Also below is the Commentary showing as to why these equipment grounding conductors must be in the same cable, conduit or trench.
COPIED SECTION OF 2002 NEC;
250.134.B
Grounding.
Unless grounded by connection to the grounded circuit conductor as permitted by 250.32, 250.140, and 250.142, non–current-carrying metal parts of equipment, raceways, and other enclosures, if grounded, shall be grounded by one of the following methods.

(B) With Circuit Conductors. By an equipment grounding conductor contained within the same raceway, cable, or otherwise run with the circuit conductors.
NEC HANDBOOK COMMENTARY;
One of the functions of an equipment grounding conductor is to provide a low-impedance ground-fault path between a ground fault and the electrical source. This path allows the overcurrent protective device to actuate, interrupting the current. To keep the impedance at a minimum, it is necessary to run the equipment grounding conductor within the same raceway or cable as the circuit conductor(s). This practice allows the magnetic field developed by the circuit conductor and the equipment grounding conductor to cancel, reducing their impedance.
Magnetic flux strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two conductors. By placing an equipment grounding conductor away from the conductor delivering the fault current, the magnetic flux cancellation decreases. This increases the impedance of the fault path and delays operation of the protective device.

I have now made it QUITE CLEAR you can not run a branch circuit with the equipment grounding conductor separated from those branch circuit conductors.

I also can not see that a branch circuit extension meets the definition of series of receptacles being installed as a branch circuit that does meet the definition of branch circuit conductors.

Now hornetd I provided the rule that says you can not, will you please provide the rule that says that you can.
Please provide the rule that says that a branch circuit extension means several receptacles and not singular.

Then please provide the copied section of the rules in the NEC that tells us we can install several receptacles [branch cirucit] with a separated grouding conductor that is not ran with the branch circuit conductors. Remember we are talking plural [several receptacles] not singular [one added receptacle].

Sorry if I can not be convinced by your thoughts alone. Just need to see the rule in the NEC that backs up what you are saying. Not saying you are wrong, just saying I can find no rule to support your stance. Would like to know the true intent of what the NEC says.

Thank you

Wg
 
  #19  
Old 10-12-02, 09:43 AM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
This discussion is hard to follow. I'm not sure everybody is on the same topic.

Is the topic whether the EGC can be separate from the other conductors? I do not believe that this is the topic -- clearly you can run a separate EGC as provided by exception #1 of 250.134(B) for nongrounding receptacle replacement (which is what I thought we were discussing).

Is the topic about branch circuit extensions? I don't think so -- I think it's about nongrounding receptacle replacement.

I thought the topic was whether a separate EGC was limited to only go directly from the panel to one outlet for nongrounding receptacle replacement, or whether you could run the ECG from the panel to one outlet and then on to another outlet. Contrary to what sberry thought he remembered me saying earlier, I believe the latter since I can find nothing in the code that prohibits it.

A lot has been commented on the use of singular and plural words in the code. I really doubt that every place in the code that uses a singular word is intended to prohibit more than one. I think it's easy to find examples where that interpretation would be absurd.
 
  #20  
Old 10-12-02, 10:24 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
You are correct John,, thats what the topic was originally about. And I do not remember clearly who quoted it but I know I pay attn at the time about having to run individual wires. I am certainly not a code expert but it really stuck with me when it was quoted. (right or wrong) I get asked this every once in a while and thought I knew the answer. I have seen people connect to heating ducts and pipes,, and I try to tell them at least hook them together and run to the panel,,, mostly falls on deaf ears. Or some dont need ground,, they got tv and alarm clock in bedroom,,, why bother. Bath, Laundry, kitchen and outdoor mainly. But that wasnt the point either,, I have got several different answers,, all the way to,, inspector hasnt turned it down. That still doesnt make it legit. I am just curious is all and I have a couple of places that this could be applied.
 
  #21  
Old 10-12-02, 01:39 PM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
John the two are combined to make the one answer.

250.134.B exception ties you right back to replacement of a receptacle or branch circuit extensions.
Copied section;
250.130.(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions

This is why both codes are being a concern to the subject matter.

A branch circuit extension is not defined in the NEC. Wish it was.

A branch circuit is defined in the NEC;
Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

250.130.C is concerning a replacement of a single receptacle. If it was designed for one or more as the NEC is written it would have teh (S) added to the end of the word receptacle throughout the rule. Look at the definition copied above where the word outlet has the (s) added. This is a method accepted throughout the NEC telling whether a specific single item or more than one of those items. Try thumbing through the NEC and you should see the pattern using the (s).

When you install a wire from receptacle to receptacel to receptacle you are creating a branch circuit not just an extension. This is where the difference of interpretation lies between Hornted and myself. Problem is this is an ongoing difference of interpretation throughout the electrical industry not just Hornetd and myself. This is why sberry is seeking a clarification concerning the subject of a separate grounding conductor.

If you are going to work with an entire branch circuit full of receptacles then you are performing more than a receptacle replacement. It is my contention that the NEC rules would be met as written if you handled each individual receptacle each to its own installing an insulated grounding conductor from the panel or grounidng electrode to each receptacle that you are replacing but then again it would be easier to install a new branch circuit.

There was mention that you could not install an equipment grouiding conductor on the load side of a replaced receptacle. However I only see reference to that limitation when using the GFI in lew of an equipment grounidng conductor.

My contention is that if you replace one receptacle then you may use 250.130.C or if you install a branch circuit exension again it would be limited to only one receptacle. This may be hard to back up but look at he commentary in the handbook after 250.130.C and you should see what I am referring to.

I think this subject could be argued throughout the industry and you would have a 50/50 split in opinion and interpretation. Seems we have this discussion show often concerning the NEC. You would think that hte NEC would pick up the lack of specifics in their wording but then again the NEC is written with intent to become adopted as law. If the NEC was clear and precise then we would have starvation in the lawyer departments. Would you like to be a judge making a final ruling on this subject in a legal action? Not me.

Wg
 
  #22  
Old 10-12-02, 04:14 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I repeat, we are not talking about a branch circuit extension. I know that 250.130(C) is titled "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extension". We are only talking about the part before the "or", not the part after the "or". That's the nature of the word "or" -- you can use only the part that applies to you.

I find absolutely no justification for your assertion that, "if you are going to work with an entire branch circuit full of receptacles then you are performing more than a receptacle replacement." If I replace just one receptacle today, is that not a receptacle replacement? If I come back tomorrow and replace one more receptacles, then what am I doing then?
 
  #23  
Old 10-12-02, 04:30 PM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree to the most that we are talking of one receptacle being replaced running a green grounding conductor from the grounding electrode system to that one receptacle.

The question on the table was can you run from that one replaced receptacle to the next receptacle or do you have to run back to the panel with an equipment grounidng wire for each rceptacle that you replace. The quest for verification is can you run a separate equipment grounding conductor from that replaced receptacle where you changed from 2 prong to three prong serving more than one receptacle with that added green equipoment grounidng conductor or do you have to replacel each two prong receptacle running its own green insulated equipment grounidng conductor.

My stance is that if you install more than one two prong receptacle to a three prong receptacle using only one green wire from the panel to serve replaced receptacles in a daisy chain manner then you are violating that rule. That rule is a special handling of the replacement of only one receptacle. That rule does not give you permission to change an existing two wire branch circuit into a three wire branch circuit by running daisy chain a single green equipment grounding conductor from receptacle to receptacle. Nowhere does it give instructions of installing a green equipment grounidng conductor from receptacle to receptacle while using 250.130.C.

The branch circuit extension refers to adding a new receptacle from an existing two wire branch circuit then you must install that green grounding conductor to serve that new added receptacle per 250.130.C.

There seems to be confusion in the industry trying to combine the two parts of that rule concerning replacing an existing two prong plug and a branch circuit extension. Two rules in one section. Not one combined rule that can apply on an entire branch circuit. This rule only applies to the singular [one receptacle] at a time.

Wg
 
  #24  
Old 10-12-02, 04:38 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks, Wg. That was clear and to the point. I now understand your position. It happens to differ from mine. This is likely one of those "agree to disagree" situations, since the code isn't clear enough to be read the same by you and me.
 
  #25  
Old 10-12-02, 09:21 PM
hornetd's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 695
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Does 250.130 prohibit duplex receptacles?

Originally posted by John Nelson
"Thanks, Wg. That was clear and to the point. I now understand your position. It happens to differ from mine. This is likely one of those "agree to disagree" situations, since the code isn't clear enough to be read the same by you and me."

John
I am sorry about the confusion. I raised the issue of circuit extensions since it seemed obvious to me that since the code in 250.130 specifically allowed grounding circuit extensions with a retrofitted single conductor run separate from the circuit conductors that it therefore allowed the multiple outlets that a circuit extension might well contain to be grounded in that way. Why do you suppose they even included circuit extensions in the language of the section?

The position that the use of the singular form prohibits the plural is unsupported in law. If that is the position that an inspector is going to take than all replacement receptacles would have to be single receptacles because the standard duplex receptacle is two receptacles mounted on a single yoke or strap. 250.130 does not mention yoke or strap it says receptacle. So under the interpretation offered a duplex receptacle could not be used as a replacement under 250.130 because there is no way to run separate Equipment Grounding Conductors to the two separate receptacles.

I suppose you could run two EGCs and pig tail them to the one grounding terminal to serve two receptacles but wouldn't that violate the prohibition against paralleling smaller conductors? No, I am not serious.
--
Tom
 
  #26  
Old 10-16-02, 11:42 AM
BillOH
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Grounding

As a non-professional I mostly follow the conflicting opinion in this thread. But I have to ask, since the code is unclear and the desirable effect is to ground each receptacle and assuming it would be easier (in some cases anyway) to daisy chain the ground from one receptacle to the next, would that not be better and safer than no ground at all???

Good discussion!
 
  #27  
Old 10-16-02, 01:28 PM
Wgoodrich
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
To me and I suspect to many in this posted discussion the answer would be yes if looking at it on a logical generic basis.

To have to choose between keeping the receptacles two prong receptacles without a grounding conductor or installing a green insulated grounding conductor separate from that existing branch circuit daisy chained from receptacle to receptacle changing to three prong receptacles it would seem [in common sense thought] that the latter would be the better of the two choices.

I don't think that is the question being imposed in this discussion. The question being imposed is what the wording in the NEC used as a rule of law is saying.

In my opinion in the strict wording of that rule it says no daisy chaining of that green grounding conductor.

Yet others are reading that same exact set of rules and have an entirely different interpretation of hte same words as written.

This difference of opinion or interpretation is very common when dealing with the intent of hte NEC. This is why so many knowledgable people frequent this forum is to hopefully hash out and receive different opinions or interpretations. Many times interpretations be a certain person is influenced by the engineering background or common sense thinking of that certain person. Many times the person reading that same set of words are making an interpretation totally void of personal opinions as to what is best in that certain persons attempt at interpretation of the written word only.

This is what creates the difference of interpretation that often appear in these heavily discussed forum subjects. It is common that the heavy discussions appear. It is highly uncommon that we come to a total agreement on that certain subject after the discussion ends. However we all are processing in our minds what each different interpretation and explaination results were. Sometimes we change our thoughts on the subject and progress to true intent of the NEC book intended to be adopted as a rule of law happens.

Many times we end up having to agree not to agree.

Welcome the the electrical industry. If we always agreed with each other concerning the electrical trade many of us would become without the challenge of learning true intent of that ambiguous wording often appearing in that NEC thus loosing insterest.

That is the amazing thing about the electrical industry, we never seem to quit seeking knowledge on the subject no matter how many years we have studied the subject, yet we also maintain respect for those that have differing opinions than ourselves. This is called professionalism. This professionalism seems to shine in these discussions of the DIY. For that I am proud of all of those that issue opinions and replies.

This subject I think we decided to agree not to agree. Somehow that did not surpise any of us. Maybe we all learned a bit along the way of this discussion, if so then we still had positive results and kept us thinking whether right or wrong.

Wg
 
  #28  
Old 10-16-02, 06:43 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
BillOH, it is often discussed and debated the fact that you are not allowed to make a situation better without making it all the way up to code. This of course applies to all codes, not just the electrical code. Many feel that this situation is stupid, but it is nevertheless something we must deal with.
 
  #29  
Old 10-16-02, 09:04 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brethren, Mi
Posts: 1,648
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
A service upgrade is a bit like that. Doesn't mean the whole house is up to code.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: