Gas water heater ground

Users who are viewing this thread

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
Ooo, big names - I guess. I always love it when I get into a disagreement with someone and they feel the need to tell me they have 147 years of experience as a <insert trade here> and are best buddies with <insert higher authority here>.

-rick
Go back and read post 18 where Jeff made this statement;
I think you will find yourself out in left field on this one. Having been an inspector for years, and IAEI and NFPA member and having access to panel members who are responsible for changes in the code, I have been able to verify the intent of issues like this.
I was simply letting him know that I was spending the day with some of these same people. I spend one or two days with these people no less than 14 times a year. I discuss things such as bonding across a water heater all the time and for some reason they think it silly also.


Your name is Joseph? I thought it was Mike.
My Mom called me Mike for 53 years. When I heard the name Joseph I knew it was time to pray for mercy.
What did you think, 4 out of 5 is not a bad average is it? Got several accepted for the 2011 cycle also.

Ive known Mike personally for about the last 4-5 years. His full name is Joseph Michael Whitt. Therefore JW Electric. And yes he eats, sleeps, and breathes the NEC.
Mel
I do believe that this electrical inspector who has his ICC as well as the state certification will tell you that I do not take my opinion and say it is the intent of the code but instead back the intent with the Report on Proposals, Report on Comments and other documentation from the National Fire Protection Association.

Although it takes a couple of years I will also summit a proposal in order to get a panel statement on items that I am unsure of in order to see their intent. I did this for the 2011 cycle so I would have their statement in writing concerning conductors installed in a 3R enclosure.

What I don’t do is make statements such as, “this is the way me and all my friends has done it for years†or “this is the intent of the code the way I see itâ€.
What I do is post documented text to back my statements so everyone can see for their self the intent of the code making panel.

What I have done throughout this entire thread is post code sections from years (the same years that this nonsense was being enforced) gone by that the requirement to make a plumbing pipe electrically continuous had been removed from the NEC. I have posted the statements from the Code Making Panel that bonding a piping system that does not have electrical continuity is nothing more than a big joke and to ensure electrical continuity between two pipes is not required.

The other side of this debate has come back with some spectacular documentation that revels the world. Just a few:
I know a few people like you that are so literal, you misinterpret the actual meaning and intent of the code.
Of course in your world, the $10 is not justified and neither is bonding the other 50% of the metallic water piping because you simply do not understand that there are times where there is not continuity. Probably don't know what a dielectric union is anyway.
jwelectric
Guys like you make the worst inspectors. stick to teaching. Remember:
"Those that can do; those that can't teach"
I have given every substantiation that exists and you are too stubborn and tunnel visioned to see the light. You just keep teaching and preaching what you want, the rest of the industry will continue to protect the public.
We will have to agree to disagree. No sense in continuing this BS.
I have read this entire thread and do not see where you have posted one word of documentation except those posted above.
I asked a simple question way back in post #14 that has not been addressed as yet except for the post I have quoted here. These post has led to others making similar insults but not one word of documentation to back your opinion although I have backed every word I have posted with statement from the code making panel and the NEC.

The bottom line is you can either back up your statements or you can’t. As a professional inspector I would think you would be prepared to back up something that you are enforcing with some sort of documentation.

I do know that should someone bring you before the Qualifications Board that has issued your certificates you will have to produce documentation of your reasons for enforcement of lose your certificates.

I know for a fact that neither the ICC nor the State of NC will accept the reasoning that this has been a Standard of Practice as foundation for making an inspection.

The bottom line of this discussion is there is no requirement to bond the hot and cold water pipes across a water heater. There is no requirement to make metal water piping systems electrically continuous.

Unless a metal water piping system is electrically continuous in and of itself then the bonding fall back to 250.104(B). See the posted proposals. The electrician is not required to make the metal water pipe electrically continuous.

The hot and cold water pipes of a building are the same water system. They are both potable water and do not constitute two separate piping systems. If there is not electrical continuity between the hot and cold water pipes for ANY reason be it fittings or stubs supplying the water heater there is no requirement for the electrician to bond these two pipes together.

I now challenge anyone be it electrician, inspector, plumber, or DIY to post documentation of anything different.
 

Billy_Bob

In the Trades
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Guys I have a scenario i want you to ponder.

This house has plastic water supply pipe to the main shut off (typical today.). Then has copper thru out the rest of the house. So the system cannot be used for a grounding electrode. Now I have a gas water heater. The NEC says the piping is to be bonded by the circuit that could energise the pipe. What circuit is there to energise the pipe?

The way I look at it is... Is it possible for something or some situation to energize a water pipe? [Anywhere - Homes, schools, industry, etc.]

Then for a rule/law, it needs to apply to everybody and every situation nationwide...

So the next question is... Have people in the past been electrocuted because a water pipe was energized?

Then (looking at this on a nationwide basis), if x number of people are being electrocuted each year by water pipes which have become energized, then let's make a rule that the water pipe system must be bonded to ground...

Then over time as this is done, fewer people will be electrocuted by water pipe systems which have become energized! Homes are safer to live in.

A LARGE MAJORITY of homes will never have a problem with anything energizing the water pipe system. The additional safety feature of it being bonded to ground will never be needed. But in those rare cases where a water pipe does become energized, the people will be protected.

So the bottom line is if you have a rule that the water pipe system must be bonded to ground, then this will save lives nationwide.

So this is a good thing in my book and should be done.

And this is the same thing with the metal cases of appliances. The range, the refrigerator, the washing machine, etc.

When I was a kid, I remember we had a refrigerator where if you were in bare feet and opened the door, you felt a slight electrical tingle (metal handle).

Well since then they have come out with grounded outlets for homes and grounded metal cases on refrigerators. This is no longer a problem. (My latest refrigerator has a plastic handle.) I've not felt an electrical tingle on a refrigerator since I was a kid!

The house wiring is now much safer, the appliances are much safer. I wonder how many lives they have saved?

I have no idea where statistics on electrocutions are at, but I did find the following chart going back to 1980. This shows a decreasing rate of electrocutions. THAT is the whole idea of this in my book!
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-131/epidemi.html#fig1
 
Last edited:

CodeOne

Code Enforcement
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
North Carolina
Billy Bob what you say could be true. However as a Code Enforcement Officer one cannot enforce what is not in the code. We are not allowed to enforce personal opinions. Just put last reply to cause thought process.;)
Thanx
Mel
 

Billy_Bob

In the Trades
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Billy Bob what you say could be true. However as a Code Enforcement Officer one cannot enforce what is not in the code. We are not allowed to enforce personal opinions. Just put last reply to cause thought process.;)
Thanx
Mel

Then the code NEC came up with is: 250.104 (A) - "Metal water piping system"

We all know what the "Metal water piping" part of that means.

Then the word "system" per one source means: "a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

Then they even show a "schematic representation" of the word system...

250px-
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
Then the code NEC came up with is: 250.104 (A) - "Metal water piping system"
We all know what the "Metal water piping" part of that means.
Then the word "system" per one source means: "a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole"

This is correct and the word “metal†is the adjective describing this whole system. It would be the same should someone make this statement, “pex water piping system.â€
Each system would be a complete system comprised of the same substance.

The code making Panel in their statement was direct and to the point with this statement, “Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.†And, “Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping systemâ€

Notice that the word complete was used in both statements? The easiest way I know to describe a complete metallic water system would be to say a metal water system that has continuity from end to end. If it does not have continuity from one end to the other or one part to the another part then it is not a complete metal water system and would fall under 250.104(B).

Here is 250.104 A and B.
250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.

(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and (A)(3).

(2) Buildings of Multiple Occupancy. Does not apply to this discussion

(3) Multiple Buildings or Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s). Does not apply to this discussion

(B) Other Metal Piping. Where installed in or attached to a building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including gas piping, that is likely to become energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with 250.122, using the rating of the circuit that is likely to energize the piping system(s). The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means. The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.

FPN: Bonding all piping and metal air ducts within the premises will provide additional safety.
Notice the Fine Print Note and here is what the NEC says about a FPN;
(C) Explanatory Material. Explanatory material, such as references to other standards, references to related sections of this Code, or information related to a Code rule, is included in this Code in the form of fine print notes (FPNs). Fine print notes are informational only and are not enforceable as requirements of this Code.

Nowhere does it say that a bonding jumper must be installed “in†the system at all. What it does say is that the system is to be bonded to some accessible point on a complete metallic water pipe.

Notice that (B) is addressing other piping systems or systems that don’t contain water. It even refers to gas which we all know isn’t water nor would an air line in a factory be a water piping system, geothermal systems that use glycol or some other such liquid, and so forth.

Notice that in (A) it uses a (s) beside the word jumper and beside the word system and jumper in (A)(1)
What does this mean? It is addressing systems and jumpers that bond things such as potable water, gray water, heat systems that have a boiler and metal pipes, metal pipes for water chillers, geothermal water systems and so forth.

Looking at this on a nation wide basis one can easily see where buildings could have multiple metal water piping systems and multiple bonding jumpers therefore the insertion of the (s).

Read carefully the main text in 250.104(A). It says to bond the system as outlined in (1), (2), and (3) below. (2) and (3) do not apply to the discussion so this only leaves (1).

In the text of 250.104(A)(1) it says to bond the system and as you have pointed out the circle to either the service enclosure, the neutral at the service, the grounding electrode conductor when it is large enough or to one of the electrodes. It does not say anywhere that the system itself must be bonded in parts or that it should be kept electrically continuous.

There is no verbiage to be found in the NEC to substantiate a requirement to make the potable water system in a building electrically continuous from end to end. There is verbiage found in 250.104 to substantiate that there is no need to install a bonding jumper unless the water system is entirely metal or has its own continuity throughout the entire system.
It is also clear that it is the intent of the code making panel that if the system is not completely 100% metal then it would fall under the scope of 250.104(B).

If there is no continuity through the metal tank of the water heater nor through a mixing valve somewhere in the building and the water heater uses gas for its function I am not going to install any kind of bond anywhere to the water system unless the electrical code enforcement official in the area of my work can show me in writing where it is required. As I have carefully pointed out there is no verbiage in the NEC that the inspector could point out so it would have to be adopted into their codes and a copy of the amendment recorded in their office and available to the public.
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
Hey Frenchie,
And yes he eats, sleeps, and breathes the NEC.

That, he most certainly does! I don't know anyone, online or IRL, who knows it half as well as Mike does.

I've only known Mike for about 3 years, and only online. We've had some really lively arguments, especially in the beginning... I've grown to like & respect him a lot, despite (and because of) how we so often disagree. Never disagreed with him on what the code says, though. That'd be like argueing with Einstein about relativity.


Nice to meetcha, Mel. I've been noticing your posts, it's good to have you around. Mike seems sort of busy these days - and the place can use someone who really knows the NEC.


edit - wow. a whole 'nuther page?
 
Last edited:

Jar546

In the Trades
Messages
424
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.inspectpa.com
What is pathetic in this case is the literal use of words vs the intent of the code.

Right from the NEC

The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules,

A wise designer, installer, or AHJ will always start with a literal interpretation of each requirement. To move beyond the literal & undertand intent, seek help from other experts.

How many more soldiers, airmen, Marines and Navy personnel need to die in the shower in Iraq because of a lack of metallic water pipe bonding.

OK so you think you were right? Tell that to the families and be proud that your interpretation caused a death.

I am out of this one. My head hurts from pounding it against the wall.
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
What is pathetic in this case is the literal use of words vs the intent of the code.

Right from the NEC

The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules,

A wise designer, installer, or AHJ will always start with a literal interpretation of each requirement. To move beyond the literal & undertand intent, seek help from other experts.
I couldn’t agree more with these statements. As my post shows the intent of the code making panel is that unless the metallic pipe is 100% metal then bonding the pipe with a conductor as outlined in 250.104(B) is all that is needed. In the case of a gas water heater then there is nothing electrical connected to the metal water pipe that might energize the pipe therefore to bond the pipe is futile.

A wise code enforcement official will always inspect using the adopted codes in his jurisdiction or the authority of that jurisdiction will most certainly cancel his certificate.

How many more soldiers, airmen, Marines and Navy personnel need to die in the shower in Iraq because of a lack of metallic water pipe bonding.

OK so you think you were right? Tell that to the families and be proud that your interpretation caused a death.
Now young man I think that you have brought something into the discussion that you have no knowledge of at all. The problem with the showers over there has to do with generators not with systems such as installed in a house.
These generators are being constantly changed out for repairs and sometimes there will be a generator bank with a couple of US generators and a couple of English generators installed to serve the same buildings. We are supplying 208/120 while the English supplies 380/219. This causes a NEV (neutral to earth voltage) which is the major problem with the showers as well as other systems in Iraq.

If you are going to try to support your statements please limit your comments to what is printed in the codes and laws for the installation in question instead of trying to draw the attention to the other side of the planet.

I am out of this one. My head hurts from pounding it against the wall.
Instead of wasting all that energy banging you head against the wall spend a little of it trying to post something that supports your statement. Post something that the governmental body that has legal jurisdiction over electrical installations has adopted.

Shucks use your own words and explain why this bonding is so important to you. Explain the dangers you see in not bonding. Give us something we can work with instead of trying to go off on some kind of tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion.
Please don’t run from the discussion but talk through your opinion as there are many out there that stand on both sides of this issue and maybe someone will learn something.

Please explain just how a metal pipe is dangerous.
 

Billy_Bob

In the Trades
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
One other thing I would like to mention is about "language" used for laws, rules, contracts, etc.

Sometimes "less wording" is better than "more wording"!

Lawyers and those who examine specific wording with a microscope can make a case that what is not included in the wording is implied to not be covered by that wording.

So it is better to not include a "list" of what is covered, rather a general statement of what is covered is best.

For example if you said "cold and hot water system", then someone somewhere is going to have a cold, a hot, and a "warm" water system (for hand washing in the bathrooms). And they are going to argue that the warm water system is not included in the list, thus no need to bond it to ground!

So then the question comes up of what are all the different types of water systems out there? This would include homes, businesses, government, and industry. Also scientific laboratories say for the pharmaceutical industry.

I would imagine there could be distilled water systems, salt water systems, sterile water systems, ionized water systems, soft water systems, and who knows what all some industrial plant or scientific lab might have?

So we know from the above posts the bonding needs to cover the "metal water piping system". Can you think of any better wording than that?

I think if you were to add any more wording or a list, it would be prone to leave something out and not cover whatever might come along in the future.

So I think the wording is best left as is... ("metal water piping system")
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
So then the question comes up of what are all the different types of water systems out there?
So I think the wording is best left as is... ("metal water piping system")

This is a good question and one that might clear things up a lot.

When it comes to bonding the metal water piping systems in a dwelling unit and the inspector comes along and says that the hot and cold constitute two separate systems I simply ask for conformation of this.

According to the ICC both are part of one system and that is the potable water system. One can consume either the cold or hot water. Both the hot and cold water pipes deliver water to the same place in kitchens for human consumption.

The same potable water is used in a glass lined metal tank and heated then delivered to the same mixing valve as the potable cold water. The water is the same just one is heated and the other is not. They both are part of the potable water system.

From the ICC plumbing code
SECTION 602
WATER REQUIRED
602.1 General. Every structure equipped with plumbing fixtures and utilized for human occupancy or habitation shall be provided with a potable supply of water in the amounts and at the pressures specified in this chapter.

602.2 Potable water required. Only potable water shall be supplied to plumbing fixtures that provide water for drinking, bathing or culinary purposes, or for the processing of food, medical or pharmaceutical products. Unless otherwise provided in this code, potable water shall be supplied to all plumbing fixtures.

602.2 clearly makes the statement that the only water allow to be installed to a sink in the kitchen where food is being prepared is Potable Water.
In my kitchen and every kitchen I have ever had the privilege of using had both hot and cold potable water at the sink.

There is no difference between the hot and cold water at in a dwelling unit, both are part of the potable water system.
 

Billy_Bob

In the Trades
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And wouldn't you know it... There is a guy I know who has city water AND a well!

The well water is not good enough for drinking. But it is much less expensive than city water.

So this guy has everything which is not drinking water on the well water, and only things you would drink from, brush teeth, etc. on the city water.

So the city water is just the minimum charge each month.
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
And wouldn't you know it... There is a guy I know who has city water AND a well!

The well water is not good enough for drinking. But it is much less expensive than city water.

So this guy has everything which is not drinking water on the well water, and only things you would drink from, brush teeth, etc. on the city water.

So the city water is just the minimum charge each month.

What your friend has is a violation of the plumbing codes as well as the health codes. He is not in compliance.

The well if it is not fit to drink it is gray water and a complete different system. Should he have the well water that is not fit to drink ran to any fixture in his house the health department can and should condemn his house until this is corrected.
 

Jar546

In the Trades
Messages
424
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.inspectpa.com
There you go keying in on the word system. Without continuity, there is no system. Again as I have stated before. THIS IS VERY RARE THAT THERE IS NOT CONTINUITY BETWEEN HOT AND COLD DUE TO MIXING VALVES FOR SHOWERS.

When there is no continuity and 50% of the metal piping in the house is NOT bonded, the system is not bonded, only part of the system.

I protect the public, you attempt to protect your ego.
 

Jar546

In the Trades
Messages
424
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.inspectpa.com
And I would highly recommend that you purchase and read a copy of Soares Book on Grounding and Bonding which is published by the IAEI.

Common sense goes a long way.
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
There you go keying in on the word system. Without continuity, there is no system. Again as I have stated before. THIS IS VERY RARE THAT THERE IS NOT CONTINUITY BETWEEN HOT AND COLD DUE TO MIXING VALVES FOR SHOWERS.

When there is no continuity and 50% of the metal piping in the house is NOT bonded, the system is not bonded, only part of the system.

I protect the public, you attempt to protect your ego.

Why do you think that there has to be continuity of the system?
Where are you getting the requirement of continuity?

If there is no continuity then the system is not metallic plain and simple. The entire pipes comprise the system and the only requirement is to bond the metal system. Should the system have mixed composites then it would still be a water system but it would be mixed and neither metal nor nonmetallic.

Please explain how bonding the pipes protect the public from anything.
By what magic will the pipes all of a sudden become electrically charged?
Just what is the purpose of this bonding in the first place?

Come on now give me something concrete to work with, something I can wrap my mind around, something that can be seen.

In what manner are you protecting the public?

There is no ego trip in this for me. I am looking at it as a chance to learn something but that can only happen if facts are presented so please present your facts. Teach me something, please.
 

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
And I would highly recommend that you purchase and read a copy of Soares Book on Grounding and Bonding which is published by the IAEI.

Common sense goes a long way.

Are you talking about this book?

soars-1.jpg


I also have the NEC handbook and the commentaries in it are not what are adopted into the North Carolina codes either.

As a code enforcement officer you know that the only words you can enforce are those adopted into the laws of your jurisdiction. Soars and the commentaries in the handbook are not code now are they?

The only people that I know that try to use this type of publication to back their statements are home inspectors and they can only make statements based on their opinions and it takes a licensed contractor to make the final comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
How many more soldiers, airmen, Marines and Navy personnel need to die in the shower in Iraq because of a lack of metallic water pipe bonding.

OK so you think you were right? Tell that to the families and be proud that your interpretation caused a death.

I am out of this one. My head hurts from pounding it against the wall.

Wouldn't that be covered by the bolded bit, below?

The code making Panel in their statement was direct and to the point with this statement, “Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.â€

A lot of this discussion is over my head, but I get the impression you guys are misinterpreting each other, more than either of you's misinterpreting the code, or what constitutes a safe vs unsafe installation.
 

Jar546

In the Trades
Messages
424
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.inspectpa.com
Yeah Frenchie but 250.104B does not always apply because many times there are appliances that are NOT connected to the electrical system such as a gas water heater.

BTW, that is an older SOARES, you should buy the 10th edition since NC has the 2008 NEC adopted. You may be enlightened since many of the panel members wrote it.

You just can't teach common sense.

And I am curious as to whether or not the Contractor Licencing Board for North Carolina has any stipulations as to how many DWI's a person can have before they pull their license? Does anyone have an idea? Some states tie the two together but not many.
 
Last edited:

JWelectric

Electrical Contractor/Instructor
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
North Carolina
And I am curious as to whether or not the Contractor Licencing Board for North Carolina has any stipulations as to how many DWI's a person can have before they pull their license? Does anyone have an idea? Some states tie the two together but not many.
Damn boy you sure are trying as hard as you can to hit below the belt with all types of insults instead of addressing the questions that have been asked of you.

I work hand in hand with many of the chiefs with both the licensing board and the DOI and they are full aware of my activities in past years.

The NC Ellis Cannady Chapter of the International Association of Electrical Inspectors Education Committee meets in the conference room at the licensing board sometimes and I am there rubbing elbows with all the commander and chiefs of that department. We meet to set the dates of our classes and then again to build the program we are going to teach which sometimes takes four or five meetings. This year all of our meetings was right there in their conference room.

Instead of wasting your time trying to point out my faults and insult my integrity try to stay on the subject matter of this discussion and tell me what part of the adopted codes in Scranton and Pittston, PA. you use to enforce bonding the hot and cold water lines together.

You keep saying that 250.104(B) does not always apply although I have posted panel statements that say if the water piping system is not completely made of metal then 250.105(B) applies. It is not me that you are in dispute with but the code making panel.

I have posted code sections from the plumbing code which you brag about being certified in that clearly states that only potable water can be ran to a fixture where food is being processed. It does not distinguish a difference between the hot and cold pipes but instead calls both potable water.

Then you throw out a couple of insults toward me and make the statement how you are making the world a safer place to live in by requiring something that you have refused to point out the code requires.
I have asked you several times to please explain how this makes the world safer and instead of posting something constructive you try to make me look like some kind of a drunk.

For your information I haven’t had any kind traffic or criminal charge leveled against me sense 1992 and will celebrate 15 years of sobriety the 24th day of this month. Had a little slip or it would have been 18 years.
So now that you have brought all this up please enlighten the rest of us what this has to do with our discussion?
Is this one of them, “I can’t win so I will just discredit the opposition†tactics that you use to distract from the topic being discussed?

Come on now. I think that someone who has this kind of credentials could do better than you have done here.

We are certified in the following areas:
Certified Building Code Official (BCO), PA-UCC
Certified Accessibility Inspector/Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Residential Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Residential Electrical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Plumbing Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Mechanical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Energy Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Electrical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Building Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Electrical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Plumbing Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Mechanical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Commercial Energy Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
Certified Fire Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

It would seem to me that you could at least answer a simple code question about bonding with all this background or at least give some sort of detail on why bonding the hot and cold water pipes makes the world a safer place.

Yes the Soars book that I posted is a 2002 edition and my 2008 edition is at school but the front of both books say the same thing, see below;

soars01.jpg


As the authors (International Association of Electrical Inspectors Richardson Tx) are clear to point out this book is not the formal interruption of the NFPA but it is a real good study guide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
Yeah Frenchie but 250.104B does not always apply because many times there are appliances that are NOT connected to the electrical system such as a gas water heater.

If they're not connected to the electrical system, or bonded to anything that is... why would they need to be grounded?

I dunno if asking that question puts me on Mike's side of the question. So I'll ask about something else that confuses me:

How come you need to bond anything on a water supply, and you guys are arguing about shower valves & suchlike... doesn't the water in the pipes, already bond the whole system?

BTW, that is an older SOARES, you should buy the 10th edition since NC has the 2008 NEC adopted. You may be enlightened since many of the panel members wrote it.

Like I said, a lot of this is over my head. I'd be asking more questions, and be less confused, except the vehemence of this argument you guys are having, makes it a bit intimidating, when I'm already confused about the issues involved.

I'm just a guy who hires electricians, for / on behalf of clients sometimes - not an electrician, just the go-between. My knowledge of the code isn't anywhere near you guys, I only need to understand enough to know if my client's getting screwed.

Upshot is, I have to struggle to follow these debates, already.


You just can't teach common sense.

Continuing with the "perfectly honest" stuff... Like I was telling CodeOne, I've had (more than?) my share of arguments with Mike. So it ain't him that I'm finding intimidating. He's also not the one who's making it personal & vehement. Know what I'm saying?

Before you go thinking that's a criticism, or I'm weighing in on his side, skim through this JLC thread:

http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37266&highlight=backstab

I've been way more personal & vehement with Mike than you're ever likely to be. Terry would never allow that kind of shitfight in here. JLC has no moderators, I could say whatever I wanted to... ;D

Taking shots at him will get you nowhere. He's like Spock - he'll never rise to the bait. It's not a pissing match to him. He's just that literal-minded about Following the Writ of the Law. You want to get anywhere, you have to approach the debate like a theological debate between clergy. Not a pissing match.

And I am curious as to whether or not the Contractor Licencing Board for North Carolina has any stipulations as to how many DWI's a person can have before they pull their license? Does anyone have an idea? Some states tie the two together but not many.

Case in point.

FYI, Mike doesn't drink.

Feel silly?











edit: I wrote everything above, before seeing that he'd posted, in the meantime (I ate dinner in the middle). I was wrong - you actually did get a rise out of him! Never once called me "boy".
 
Last edited:
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

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.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks