3 prong rec. Code thought.

Reply

  #1  
Old 01-30-07, 09:02 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
Question 3 prong rec. Code thought.

2005 code.
How do some of you interpret this? 250.130 Specificaly (C)

I ask because it (to me) conflicts with some advice. Perhaps I read it wrong.

(This has been deleted from MA. code. and all referances to it.)
 

Last edited by lectriclee; 01-30-07 at 09:33 PM.
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-30-07, 09:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Bern, NC
Posts: 1,623
If you run any cable look at 300.3 (B)

If not, then you can do what you are thinking. But I would call it a bad idea, and a hack job unless it was a bail out.
 
  #3  
Old 01-30-07, 09:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Wis / Paris France{ In France for now }
Posts: 4,808
ahh excuse me but which code cycle are you refering the 02 or 05 ?? so i can able get the correct code book out and look this up

Merci , Marc
 
  #4  
Old 01-30-07, 09:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Bern, NC
Posts: 1,623
I was on 2005
 
  #5  
Old 01-30-07, 09:26 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Wis / Paris France{ In France for now }
Posts: 4,808
Thanks Jwhite now i am on right track
 
  #6  
Old 01-30-07, 09:27 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Bern, NC
Posts: 1,623
hey frenchie, why you no come to EK no more?
 
  #7  
Old 01-30-07, 09:32 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
2005

Hi Marc, 2005

300.3(B)2 then it goes from there.. 250.134(B) exc.1

What gives?
 
  #8  
Old 01-30-07, 09:36 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Wis / Paris France{ In France for now }
Posts: 4,808
Jwhite ; my computer was crashed pretty hard and lost most of my detail on hard drive so i am slowing get all the stuff back on track as i am speaking now.


anyway i did review my NEC book and i have to agree with you with 300.3 (B)

took me a min longer to find this due i have French verison and have to translated to engish again.

i am sure this question was related to other fourm related here per titled in here

and i will like to get to bottom of this before it get flare up related with grounding wire going from 2 to 3 wire repecicale

Merci, Marc
 
  #9  
Old 01-30-07, 09:43 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Wis / Paris France{ In France for now }
Posts: 4,808
Eleclee: there was a running change in code between 02 and 05 to clearify related to using the metholds of using grounding wire.




note to the diy's :

the terms somehow is diffrent then what you expect to see here this is common used by sparky[s] but each area may have diffrent way to speak of the type of wires etc

grounding = green wire or earth

grounded = netrual wire or white wire

this word been on debate for pretty long time on professeal forum as well and it will stir the fire from time to time

Merci , Marc
 
  #10  
Old 01-30-07, 09:46 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
WOULD never think of doing it.
This was Just a topic that I wanted other opinions on.

I also would suggest that it never be done. (my own disclaimer).

If it's the wrong forum, thats ok. I understand.

Good to have you back FRench277V.
 
  #11  
Old 01-30-07, 09:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Wis / Paris France{ In France for now }
Posts: 4,808
lectrilee;

thanks i am glad i am back here now and getting up to the speed here and been busy for while as well

Merci, Marc
 
  #12  
Old 01-31-07, 12:18 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 111
Lee:
This is written for the layperson by a layperson, please don’t think I am talking down to you.

Section 250.130(C) applies to the extension of a non grounding circuit, or non grounding receptacle replacement, with a grounding receptacle (which many say is prohibited). Personally I don’t see any problem with it. My understanding of section 300.0(B)(2) is to limit impedance caused by inductive heating when circuit conductors are not grouped. While it does include the EGC, it does make exceptions for an EGC in certain circumstances. I’d guess this is because the EGC does not normally carry any current. Heck, all kinds of stuff (Plumbing, Re Bar, Building Steel, etc) is bonded to the GES/EGC, that is not grouped with the circuit conductors. All circuit extensions must have an EGC. Section 250.130(C) provides the conditions that allow the EGC to be run separately (not grouped) from the circuit conductors to provide grounding for a non grounding circuit. It is specific as to when and how this can be done.

A while back Mike Holt wrote an article for EC&M, in this article he says:

“Once you add a receptacle outlet (branch-circuit extension), the receptacle must be of the grounding type and be grounded per 250.130(C). This requirement may seem inconsistent, but it's not. Here's the logic. Your existing two-wire system was installed per the Code that existed at the time. Today's NEC doesn't mandate ripping out existing 2-wire systems and replacing them just so you can add a GFCI. Nor does it allow you to add on to the 2-wire system and just throw in a GFCI. A 3-wire system is safer than a 2-wire system. So if you add to an existing system, what you add must be of the 3-wire configuration — not the 2-wire configuration.”

Often, it is no more difficult, and the cost difference may be negligible, to just run a new circuit. But, I don’t see 250.130(C) or 250.134(B) exception 1 as being unsafe.

Thanks
 

Last edited by Juhl; 01-31-07 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Typo
  #13  
Old 01-31-07, 01:15 AM
1Geniere's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 113
Iím not an electrician, but my interpretation (on-line 2005 edition) is:

Depending on existing wiring, it allows running a groundING wire from any receptacle to the neutral buss, the neutral/grounding buss, the grounding buss, or the earthed electrode grid. The wire need not be run in the same cable or conduit that the conductors are in.

Separated from the conductors, the grounding wire impedance might be very slightly higher, thus fault current very slightly lower (longer time to trip breaker), but ...

other than that, whatís the difference?

...
 
  #14  
Old 01-31-07, 04:41 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
JUHL: No worries, If I couldn't take, it I wouldn't ask it.

You explained yourself well and I agree, With the extending theory.

My question,thoughts were for the replacement OF rec. only.

I read it one way, and am just trying to see if I read it correct.
And if others see the same.

I know the code is for safety, They don't care about electronic equipment,nor should they.

Again, Would NEVER advise or do it. A bad idea, But it's in the book.
 
  #15  
Old 01-31-07, 04:50 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Piedmont
Posts: 92
Yeah, and no inspector I know would allow it......strange indeed.
 
  #16  
Old 01-31-07, 07:14 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
and no inspector I know would allow it##

It's in the book.

Not good practice and would never try it.
But inspectors can only enforce...not write.
 
  #17  
Old 01-31-07, 07:38 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United States
Posts: 18,497
I see no issue at all with this code. It provides a direct grounding connection back to the grounding electrode system, which is directly connected to the power company neutral. This allows fault current to flow to exactly the same point as it would in any other circuit, and the fault current does not have to pass through any of your grounded conductors or plumbing or earth (the three typical problems). I see no issue.

Are you concerned about how the EGC is connected to the GES, or the fact that it doesn't run along the same path as the other circuit conductors?
 
  #18  
Old 01-31-07, 08:12 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
Just asking about changing a 2-prong receptacle to a 3-prong and have it meet the grounding requirements.

I read this one way. And have seen many posts here saying this was not code or feasable.
Wanted some feed back on my iterpretation.

Just questioning authority.

I firmly feel. As a professional. That it's as easy, and better to run an entire new cable to a device. ( pull 1 wire? why not a cable?).
 
  #19  
Old 02-01-07, 01:01 AM
1Geniere's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by lectriclee View Post
Ö That it's as easy, and better to run an entire new cable to a device. ( pull 1 wire? why not a cable?).

I think it would be easier to pull an un-insulated #6+ ground wire because you are not constrained to providing the same degree of physical protection and support as is necessary with an insulated conductor run.

A functional GFI affords good protection, but it does not prevent a conductive surface from being energized; it only trips after the fault circuit is completed with at least 5ma of current flowing. Safety is surely enhanced by bonding all exposed conductive surfaces to the grounding system.

To me, it seems to be a good alternative means of grounding the many ranges and dryers lacking an EBC.

The easier and less costly a problem is to correct, the more likely it will be corrected.
 
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
'