tmurray
SAWHORSE
That's not like any cap I've ever seen.
Is it... Is it tape?
Is it... Is it tape?
I appreciate all of the interesting photos you post of the often "shoddy" work you find. I'm curious though for this one, what exactly is the violation here? Definitely could be one, but I don't see it immediately. Are you complaining about the crimped connection? Looks not-removable to me. and it looks like the actual grounding electrode conductor is one continuous piece, looks big enough, and the armor clad is not even required if that's #6 or larger.
Disaster? Same question, what is the violation here?Another disaster. This thread is a good example of how not to do things.
The wire is #4. The armor shall be bonded at every end. The wire is subject to physical damage and requires protection no matter what size it is.I appreciate all of the interesting photos you post of the often "shoddy" work you find. I'm curious though for this one, what exactly is the violation here? Definitely could be one, but I don't see it immediately. Are you complaining about the crimped connection? Looks not-removable to me. and it looks like the actual grounding electrode conductor is one continuous piece, looks big enough, and the armor clad is not even required if that's #6 or larger.
Is that a drive way? Or are you using 250.64 (B)(2) to say that's exposed to physical damage? (2019 CEC) If that's a driveway I'd agree, if it's just a walkway I'd say 250.64 (B)(1) "A 6 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor not exposed to physical damage shall be permitted to run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection" would allow this install w/o the protection and therefore if extra protection is added the way it's shown it's not a violation. This comes down to interpretation and opinion, a very grey and sticky area of the code.The wire is #4. The armor shall be bonded at every end. The wire is subject to physical damage and requires protection no matter what size it is.
Is this me setting a bad example for the rest of us again?Is that a drive way? Or are you using 250.64 (B)(2) to say that's exposed to physical damage? (2019 CEC) If that's a driveway I'd agree, if it's just a walkway I'd say 250.64 (B)(1) "A 6 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor not exposed to physical damage shall be permitted to run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection" would allow this install w/o the protection and therefore if extra protection is added the way it's shown it's not a violation. This comes down to interpretation and opinion, a very grey and sticky area of the code.
Well yes and no. You are correct with regards to the question of whether protection is required. It is apparent that the contractor is in the "it needs protection camp".Is this me setting a bad example for the rest of us again?
Cool, some new stuff to look up! Love it. So if the contractor had simply omitted the AC it would have been ok, but since it's there it needs to be installed correctly. I can get with that logic. I'll do my research, but do you know if the capacitive coupling would occur during normal operation, or only when there's a fault? Or a lightning strike? Thanks for explaining.Well yes and no. You are correct with regards to the question of whether protection is required. It is apparent that the contractor is in the "it needs protection camp".
I disagree with the contention that "extra" stuff can be provided incorrectly since it is not required to be there. The reason behind the bonding of every end of ferrous metal raceway that protects a GEC has to do with capacitive coupling. How to spell it is where my understanding hesitates. Electric fields inducing a current is for the engineers to explain but suffice it to say the work in the picture is a violation.
A further violation shown is the C-tap. While the C-tap is legal to use, it is not properly crimped as there are no witness marks of a proprietary crimping tool having been utilized.
View attachment 7420
Would you consider the AC a raceway or an enclosure? In my mind a raceway or an enclosure brings up very specific things, AC is not one of them, but I'm open to understanding things differently.I would agree that it is "mostly" along the building construction, so yes, judgment call.....But bonding both ends of the metal "raceway" is not gray at all....250.64E1
During normal operation the GEC and electrodes see no current. Only if there is a blast from lightning, or commingling higher voltage lines with medium voltage would there be a significant role to play. At least that has been explained that way.....but hey now this is the internet and all.Cool, some new stuff to look up! Love it. So if the contractor had simply omitted the AC it would have been ok, but since it's there it needs to be installed correctly. I can get with that logic. I'll do my research, but do you know if the capacitive coupling would occur during normal operation, or only when there's a fault? Or a lightning strike? Thanks for explaining.
I have over 100 pictures of wrong C-taps and no pictures of proper C-taps. The Tool is supposed to emboss a number in the witness mark. That number is supposed to match the die used that is the right die for the size C-tap. When it is there it is so faint that it is nearly undetectable. Not all manufacturers have that specific tool either. The thing to look for is a straight sided rectangular indent and a damn tight crimp.as there are no witness marks of a proprietary crimping tool having been utilized.
Do you have a clear picture of a properly crimped dealie?
Contractor: "But it is weather tight!! "