Grounded for two weeks...hopefully longer [RE-wrenches]

[Brad Bassett]

==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay!  Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYbz8Qcsbz9JC9a/TopOffers
==========================================================
250.64 refers to the grounding electrode conductor, isn't this the 
conductor from the main panel to the ground rod? If so, then it's 
probably a good idea to follow 250.64, including 250.64(c) continuous 
wire, I've always followed this. 

But I beleive that the grounding of modules is an equipment grounding 
conductor falling under 250.120, not 250.64, which only requires 
protection from phyical damage, or the use of #6 Cu if exposed to 
physical damage. I've always considered that an equipment grounding 
conductor (and current carrying conductors also) that is attached to the 
module or racking frames counts as being protected, and that conductors 
running where they can be stepped on or tripped over such as larger gaps 
between modules or racks (more than the 1" racking gap between modules) 
should be in conduit or protected in some way.

Brad


mlafferty at universalenergies.com wrote:
> 
> David H wrote:
> 
> >  We just had one of our installers get tagged by a county inspector 
> >  with a new one. He stated that the code says "all grounding 
> >  conductors smaller than #4 shall be in conduit". Therefore he wants 
> >  all the the #10 bare copper connecting the modules placed in conduit. 
> >  Does anyone have a rebuttal for us?
> 
> David / Wrenches:
> 
> > 250.64(B) tells us that conductors smaller than 6 AWG have to be in 
> > conduit.
> Caution - Don't even read 250.64(C) if you care to keep your lunch in 
> your
> stomach!
> 
> 250.120(C) supports the "#6 and smaller in conduit" and adds the 
> "physical
> damage" clause.  This is your "out", but only if you can help the 
> inspector
> see that "up here on the roof" isn't "subject to physical damage" under 
> the
> "spirit of the Code principle".
> 
>> 



Brad Bassett
AEE


- - - -
To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com

Archive of previous messages: http://lists.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/read

List rules & etiquette: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm

Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/

Hosted by Home Power magazine

Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: michael.welch at homepower.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Qcs.bz9JC9.bWljaGFl
Or send an email to: RE-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------