Houptee
Member
NEC version adoption by state map
http://www.nema.org/Technical/FieldReps/Pages/National-Electrical-Code.aspx
http://www.nema.org/Technical/FieldReps/Pages/National-Electrical-Code.aspx
Have you noticed that you are alone in your interpretation that a simple jumper between hot and cold water pipes at a water heater is forbidden even where not having a jumper is permissible?I have seen some pretty determined people in my life but I have never seen someone so determined to prove their point so hard that they start making up names for the actions they are taking. Just what is a continuity jumper?
I was trying to prove my point. Now I am just trying to learn something. Yes, the term "continuity jumper" (notice the quotes) is a made up term, as you point out, to help me understand what you are saying.I have seen some pretty determined people in my life but I have never seen someone so determined to prove their point so hard that they start making up names for the actions they are taking. Just what is a continuity jumper?
I do hope that we all understand the difference between an electrical raceway and a water pipe.
I have seen installations at water heaters where the installer would bond from the water pipes to the gas pipes. When CSST is being used to supply the appliance the instructions with the CSST pipe is very clear that this is a violation. The CSST pipe will require that the gas bond be at one of the four places outlined in 250.104(A)(1).
The codes are written and adopted for a reason. The code sections go through scrutiny for a two year period before being written. We may not understand why they are written the way they are but that is not for the installer to understand but are for the installer to comply with.
Once the water pipe is bonded it is in compliance but any other bond is still bound by the same rule as the original bond.
A kitchen counter top is required to be supplied by no less than two small appliance 20 amp circuits. Using the notion that once a rule has been complied with means we can do whatever we desire would be saying that once these two circuits are installed I could now install a dozen 15 amps circuit to the counter top. I don’t think any of us would argue that this would be a violation but to prove ourself right we will stoop to trying to circumvent the rules elsewhere.
I was trying to prove my point. Now I am just trying to learn something. Yes, the term "continuity jumper" (notice the quotes) is a made up term, as you point out, to help me understand what you are saying.
Now that you helped me realize that electrical raceways and water pipes are treated differently in terms of electrical continuity under the code, I am beginning to understand what you are saying.
While reading the code, I don't see where maintaining electrical continuity of water pipes with clamps and wires is allowed, but I also still don't see where it is forbidden, but defer to your experience/interpretation/insight or whatever. Understanding the codes is not always easy. Thank you for pointing this out, and I will run it by my local inspector the next time he's out and watch him sweat
A kitchen counter top is required to be supplied by no less than two small appliance 20 amp circuits. Using the notion that once a rule has been complied with means we can do whatever we desire would be saying that once these two circuits are installed I could now install a dozen 15 amps circuit to the counter top. I don’t think any of us would argue that this would be a violation but to prove ourself right we will stoop to trying to circumvent the rules elsewhere.
look at the post above yours and you will see "shall be bond TO" which implies that there is only one place that it is to be bonded TOGood point. For your example there are rules elsewhere. For bonding a water heater no one has found any rules elsewhere.
In your example the rules concerning small appliance 20amp circuits have phrases "SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL" and "SHALL SERVE ALL" which sounds like they are there to prevent other options like additional 15amp circuits. The bonding section does not use the word "ALL" that I can find. Is there a rule elsewhere that covers it?
You should not need to depend on a water heater for proper electrical bonding.
As long as you have a good ground, then you are good to go.
To learn more about water heater heater electrical bonding, Read the Install manual.
No need to bond or ground a missing water heater.
Have fun, Everyone.
Unless I am badly mistaken New Jersey only amended the code on bonding around pools and spas and did nothing to 250,104(A)(1).Up here I guarantee you that anytime a service gets replaced part of the job will include and require a continuous ground conductor that is usually bare copper run along your water pipes to jumper across anything non metallic....
It doesn't matter what we call it, what matters is what the code calls it and the code calls it a bonding jumper that must comply with the verbiage of the code not the desires of a code official or contractor. Just because an inspector wants to see something in no way means that they want to see a compliant installation. The inspector must site a code section or just go on his/her merry way.I did not call it Bonding
NJ can enforce whatever they want -- as long as it is written down in an official document as being the enforced code.I agree with you jw.
NJ is on the NEC 2011 and that is the code they have to enforce, period, and they should not add their own requirements, thanks for your code references and explanations.
We agreeNJ can enforce whatever they want -- as long as it is written down in an official document as being the enforced code.
Why would someone want to keep a conductor continuous without a splice between ground rods?After watching this thread for a while, I still don't see anything in the code (or JW's quotes) that forbids a continuous, non-spliced wire going from a proper bonding point being used to bond several isolated sections of pipe... Just because something was removed from the code as a requirement does not make it illegal, unless actually stated so. I can run the same wire for a GEC to as many grounding rods/whatever as I want as long it is unspliced, but cannot bond pipes in the same way? I just don't see the words "shall not", "forbidden", or similar...
I have posted the relevant code sections so it is not my story but the history of the NEC. You see I study the rules of my profession.JW's story is (beat me up if I'm wrong) that the NEC "committee" retracted a requirement for making metallic, plumbing "electrically continuous", because they felt it was outside the scope of the NEC, but now, due to lack of any wording at all about the practice, it is forbidden? What is the NEC definition of separate piping systems anyway?
If it is your jurisdiction that is making this rule then it can be shown to you in writing. If it is just some stupid idea of the inspector then it is not enforceable.All that said, JW's (and North Carolina's) interpretation of the code is valid for enforcement purposes, just not the only interpretation. Is it safer? Maybe. If my jurisdiction said individually bond sections of pipe, I would, without argument...
Tradition plays no part in the inspection process. Either I can back myself with the NEC or I must go on my merry way. I am a sworn officer of the law and just as any other sworn officer I must adhere to the adopted laws not my opinion.Like I said earlier, "tradition" plays an important part in the inspection process.
As a code enforcement officer I am there to inspect for code compliance not to inspect your design. An example would be you have brought the circuit to the light fixture and then dropped the switch leg down to the switch or you brought the circuit to the switch and the switch leg from the switch to the light. Either method is a compliant method as long as it is installed in a code compliant manner.For arguments sake, there could be 10 ways to do something that were all technically allowed under the code, but 9 of them could be rejected as "non-compliant" in a particular jurisdiction, just to simplify the inspection process.
If that were true we would not see the requirement for AFCI's continue.
Those charged with writing the codes are far more versed than most electrical installers. They don’t use a tradition or standard of practice when writing the codes but instead they use facts, proven facts not myth.
This is awkward, but...
It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.
If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.