Exothermic Ground Rod

You must be joking... do you really believe ground rods and their larger fields, to include their associated conductors, are always within inaccessible areas? Oh boy...

This is going nowhere fast. It's time to get ready for tomorrow.
I need to address mudane MOU's and SOP's concerning our newly networked APCO Project ISSI links between the separated City and County of Milwaukee PSAPs tomorrow.
I need my sleep... good night.

 

Built many hundreds of cell sites and other communication tower installations. Engineering drawings always required cad-welding (exothermic) on the grounding system. It was claimed the cad-welded connection had lower resistance than the wire/cable itself. They were mechanically/electrically sound and below/above ground level didn't matter. But you always need to observe proper safety procedures because once the shot is ignited it hits over 3000° in a split second.

 

Actually, it's 250-53 (A), and the words are 'embedded' and practicable. Now read the REST of the article. 250-53 (G) states that " The upper end of the electrode shall be flush with or below ground level unless the above ground end and the grounding electrode conductor attachment are protected against physical damage".

So I am allowed to have the rod and the connection both above ground if they are protected from damage.

If you would have read all of 250-53 you would have seen that.

 

We don't bury vertical ground rods, they are required to be driven in.

Your bold is a mis-quote.

 

Sorry, but I am not going to provide you with copies of the code.

This is on you. Let's say I have an installation of two 10' rods driven 9 1/2 feet into the ground and the exposed rod ends and connections are protected from physical damage. Either admit that it's an allowed installation, or cite me the violation with article number.

 

Steve, you are not understanding what the NEC is all about.

It is NOT a design manual.

It is NOT a specification manual.

It is NOT an installation manual.

It IS a set of MINIMUM standards.

If the NEC allows something that does NOT mean it's the best installation. Nor the prettiest. Nor the most efficient. Just 'essentially free of hazards'. Not totally free, just essentially free.

The NEC doesn't care about what happens to people when they trip over a ground rod, all they care about is what happens to the ground rod. Trip hazards are not a concern of the NEC. That doesn't make them any less hazardous, just something the NEC does not address.

One of my code instructors (a ham BTW) used to say that an electrician that follows the NEC to the letter is the worst electrician allowed by law.

 

No, it was a cut and paste.
I suppose we are at an impasse then. Please continue doing what you are doing.

 

Now there's something we agree on!

 

Good....you may return to "addressing the mundane". Carry on !

 

You certainly do not know much about code.

Where Practical means NOT REQUIRED. In code language SHALL BE means REQUIRED.

You lost the argument.Credentials count and you do not have any.

 

Ditto, he does not know what he is talking about and quite obvious has never been in the trade or profession. You and I both know he cannot cite the code, because it does not or has ever has existed.

 

If he were a professional like he claims would have known better. Means he is either a pretender, or incompetent.

 

Sometimes 20 years of experience means 1 year 20X. If doing something the same way for 20 years is the extent of his experience it begins to feel like it's required. It's a human trait...we don't know enough to call him a pretender or incompetent. In some places that can get yourself sued!

 

Not from the NEC. Maybe some web site that was attempting to interpret the rule and used their own words?

 

250-53 (A) is a screwy rule. First, it's 'practicable', not 'practical'.

"Where practicable, rod, pipe and plate electrodes shall be embedded below permanent moisture level."

This can't be enforced because of the conflict of "where practicable' and "shall be". What is used to determine if something is 'practicable' or not?

'Permanent moisture level' has no definition in the NEC and is not something that can be measured practicably.

I would like to see the CMP do away with it, or at least make some sense of it.