Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
I guess that could be considered a "trap" too, since no one else knew it.
OK loaded question. 
I am not as certain as you that you have the answer.
The NEC does not have the answer either.
More often than not the NEC treats equipment separate than conductors.
Then they mess that up with the article 100 definition of equipment.
I do agree that the definition of equipment needs some changes, maybe you could get a proposal through fixing this up. 
Many article 100 definitions are broad, look at structure.
Quote:
Structure. That which is built or constructed.
What is not 'built or constructed'?
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bbadger wrote:
More often than not the NEC treats equipment separate than conductors.
Not really. It does, however, treat specific appliances, motors, devices, etc. differently. 
Quote:
Then they mess that up with the article 100 definition of equipment.
I do agree that the definition of equipment needs some changes, maybe you could get a proposal through fixing this up.
Yep, may just do that.
Quote:
Many article 100 definitions are broad, look at structure.
Quote:
Structure. That which is built or constructed.
What is not 'built or constructed'?
I have the answer to that last question. Anything that is not man made. That mother nature made.
This exact thing was discussed during the video sessions I attended. Here is a question for you.
Is a service pedestal or service pole a separate structure from the structure it supplies?
Yes, well, okay, technically it is, but you can't really consider it that way because ... , but why not - it IS a separate structure?
It is an unanswerable question.
Like which came first, the chicken or the egg.
It is a separate structure. But not when 'a separate structure' is being considered on how to supply it?
Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree, if it is man made it is a structure, skyscraper or box of tissues both are structures
The pedestal is a separate structure but I can not think of the reason you say it is also not, but I am smart enough not to disagree. 
I will ask you to fill me in.
I also do not understand why you disagree with this.
Quote:
More often than not the NEC treats equipment separate than conductors.
The only place I know where the NEC says conductors are equipment is in article 100.
In no time at all I can find at least two places where it treats them separately.
Bob
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bbadger wrote:
The pedestal is a separate structure but I can not think of the reason you say it is also not, but I am smart enough not to disagree. 
I will ask you to fill me in.
When you have a service on one building, and supply another building from the first building, what are the differences in requirements for the second building as compared to the requirements for the first building?
"but I am smart enough not to disagree.  " Yeah, right.
Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
When you have a service on one building, and supply another building from the first building, what are the differences in requirements for the second building as compared to the requirements for the first building?
I have tried to think of what you are getting at and it still does not come to mind.
Still not disagreeing. 
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Interesting reference Joe … … I will stick to my guns though. I think wiring can be part of equipment (e.g the MC cable reference), but it doesn’t mean the wiring is indeed “equipment”.
I do agree some of the NEC definitions are very vauge and interpretive ... the bottom is the AHJ's position. I know many building officials, and can't think of one who would apply 300.22.B to mean MC or plenum rated cable cant be instaled in ductwork or plenums because it's "equipment".
That would mean in just about every commercial building you would not be permitted to run MC or plenum rated cables above hung ceilings, because it is very common for the space above to be used as an open return air plenum ... yea right ...
I like a good debate, but we might be getting a little off home inspections ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
That would mean in just about every commercial building you would not be permitted to run MC or plenum rated communication cables above hung ceilings, because it is very common for the space above to be used as an open return air plenum ... yea right ... 
That space above a suspended ceiling is not Ducts or Plenums Used for Environmental Air that space is Other Space Used for Environmental Air.
The rules are different any 'equipment' with a metal enclosure can be in that 'other' space.
Now I am pushing Jerry's side, somebody shoot me! 
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bbadger wrote:
jpeck wrote:
When you have a service on one building, and supply another building from the first building, what are the differences in requirements for the second building as compared to the requirements for the first building?
I have tried to think of what you are getting at and it still does not come to mind.
Still not disagreeing. 
Bob,
Okay, I'll restate it slightly differently.
You bring a service to building A. What requirements does that service and service equipment have? Just the basic requirements for disconnects, grounding, bonding, etc.
You bring a service from building A to a separate building B. What are the differences, if any, in the requirements for building B as compared to those for building A? Let's start with assuming there are no metal paths between buildings. Just those basic requirements for disconnects, grounding, bonding, etc.
This is not a trick question, it is a "loaded" question with a trick answer.
Anyone can jump in and play, Bob doesn't have to be the only player.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
So, I guess there are no more players?
Okay, The first building gets the service equipment, gets the neutral bonded to ground, and gets the normal bonding electrode system treatment [250.32(A)]. Just keeping it simple.
The second building gets a panel for its branch circuits, the neutral does not get bonded to ground, and this building also gets the normal bonding electrode system treatment[250.32(A)]. This building is NOT provided with an equipment grounding conductor run with the supply conductors from the first building because, as stated previously. "assuming there are no metal paths between buildings" [250.32(B)(2)]. Keeping it simple.
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
“neutral does not get bonded to ground”
How does the neutral get bonded if you do not reground the neutral at building B?
If you have no metalic paths and you run a 3 wire feeder you must reground the neutral, just like you did in the service disconnect enclosure. What you don't need is the supplimental bonding bushings on the masts and sections of metalic raceway. The equipment does not need to be listed as "service equipment".
I would clip the NEC text on but I have a drive crapped out and I haven't reloaded the handbook yet.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
(Bldg B) there are two options for the “sub-panel” there:
1. Run a sub-panel feeder with a ground/bond wire, and isolate the sub-panel neutral ("floating neutral" with no connection between the neutral and ground/bond wires)
2. Run a sub-panel feeder without a ground/bond wire, and connect the neutral and ground/bond wires there (only an option for a separate building).
Not that complicated ... I thought the "mousetrap" on if wiring was considered "equipment" was a little more sticky. Whats the catch you are talking about (or leading the mouse too ... lol) that an HI may come across?
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I hate the term “floating neutral” it is bonded to the ground at the service if you are running the 4 wire feeder. When you say “floating” it is too easy for someonme to think it does not need to be bonded anywhere. “Isolated” would be a better description.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Greg Fretwell wrote:
I hate the term "floating neutral" ... "Isolated" would be a better description.
I agree "isolated neutral" is a better way to describe it ... "floating neutral" is just a common description that HI's also use ... 
Good link too.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
Greg Fretwell wrote:
I hate the term "floating neutral" ... "Isolated" would be a better description.
I agree "isolated neutral" is a better way to describe it ... "floating neutral" is just a common description that HI's also use ... 
Personally I like "insulated" neutral. I liked to use "insulated ground" to describe the IG receptacles too.
Isolated seems to make folks think these are not bonded to the service grounding electrode system in any way.
… I will stick to my guns though. I think wiring can be part of equipment (e.g the MC cable reference), but it doesn’t mean the wiring is indeed “equipment”.