# Multiple Ground Rods, help



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

You do not need the ground rod for your sub-panel. the original one rod is all that is required assuming it tested 25 ohms or less. What is with all the 4 foot ground rods ?

If your wanting 'better' grounding then you need 8 foot rods. 

Grounding electrode conductors going to ground rods need only be 6 awg copper. That looks like what you have.


----------



## Yoyizit (Jul 11, 2008)

Stubbie said:


> You do not need the ground rod for your sub-panel. the original one rod is all that is required assuming it tested 25 ohms or less. What is with all the 4 foot ground rods ?
> 
> If your wanting 'better' grounding then you need 8 foot rods.
> 
> Grounding electrode conductors going to ground rods need only be 6 awg copper. That looks like what you have.


What are good reasons for 
. . .wanting 'better' grounding. . .?
An area that is prone to lightning?


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

The 4 foot ground rods and a second ground rod less than 6 feet from the 8 foot ground rod do not count unless the rods altogether meet the 25 ohm test using special equipment.

If you have two 8 foot rods at least 6 feet apart then the system passes without doing the 25 ohm test.

It is not necessary to remove "extra" ground rods.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Hello All,
I will attempt to answer everyone's question with this post.


1) I have no way of knowing for sure, minus paying someone $$$, as to whether our ground system would meet the 25ohm threshold. However, I would much prefer going overkill in this instance by adding a second 8ft ground rod or possibly several 4ft ground rods -versus- the alternative.


2) In addition, as I understand the copper wire going to the ground rod is supposed to be straight (minus bends). We however have two significant bends in ours. I could straighten it some but never fully.


3) I prefer to add 4ft ground rods, 10ft and 20ft from electric meter, because they are easier to drive. If one 8ft ground rod is better though I will go that route. 

Also, I realize adding a ground rod in close proximity to the existing ground rod won't count. The only reason I contiplated that was in order to avoid having bends in the new copper wire coming from the new subpanel. It was really just a means by which to connect the new subpanel copper wire to the existing ground rod.


*Is this an acceptable strategy or not? If not, what say you?*



God Bless


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

Run continuous ground wire from meter socket to all ground rods,no splices


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

View attachment 45615


plummen said:


> Run continuous ground wire from meter socket to all ground rods,no splices


I cannot run a continous copper wire from my existing meter without having my power turned off. It would then have to pass inspection and possibly be a day or two later before I could get my power turned back on.

Is that really necessary anyhow? As I understand, you only need to connect the ground rods together via one continous copper wire. That is how Siemens depicts it as well as Mike Holts and others..


I could run a continuous copper wire from my new subpanel to the existing ground rod and then on to the proposed additional ground rods (see my diagram from earlier post).

Thanks, Ralph


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

Ive always run a continuous ground wire,makes sense that it would have less resistance and have fewer parts to worry about.
But I could be wrong,Ive been told that before! :laughing:


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

This way has always made sense to me anyway
But whatever you do make sure to pound the rods completely into the ground regardless off what this picture shows


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

plummen said:


> Ive always run a continuous ground wire,makes sense that it would have less resistance and have fewer parts to worry about.
> But I could be wrong,Ive been told that before! :laughing:


I guess you could with the simple setup as shown in your example. 

Siemens however depicts running individual ground wires from the various panels (subpanels, phone panels, ac units etc) which is more applicable to my setup and connecting those to the ground rod system. Mike Holts also depicts similar. 

All the details I've read just state to be sure the ground rods are connected together via one copper wire. Whereas all show the copper wire coming from the meter and various panels as being spliced pieces and clamped to the ground rods.

Take care, Ralph


----------



## zappa (Nov 25, 2011)

Ralph III said:


> I guess you could with the simple setup as shown in your example.
> 
> Siemens however depicts running individual ground wires from the various panels (subpanels, phone panels, ac units etc) which is more applicable to my setup and connecting those to the ground rod system. Mike Holts also depicts similar.
> 
> ...


This isn't a complicated process. The more fittings that you have the more chances for loose connections, but it's really not a big deal. Wire it up with as many or few connections that you want too.


----------



## bobelectric (Mar 3, 2007)

plummen said:


> This way has always made sense to me anyway


 Zoom into the 1990's and use MB circuit breaker panels


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

For services of more than 100 amps and with a metal water pipe exiting the basement underground, you need a ground wire (grounding electrode conductor) fatter than #6 (#4 if copper for service 101 to 200 amps) from panel to pipe and this must be unspliced. For services 100 amps and under and with ground rods you need #6 as GEC unspliced from panel to a qualifying (8') ground rod.

The remaining grounding electrodes for the same building must be interconnected with additional #6 as GEC which may be hung off of (clamped to) other previously strung GEC that may be reached first.

Subpanels in separate buildings need just one 8' ground rod. The ground bonding back to the main panel is accomplished by the ground wire (equipment grounding conductor) accompanying the power feed and depending on the ampere capacity of the feed may be smaller than #6.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

bobelectric said:


> Zoom into the 1990's and use MB circuit breaker panels


That was just a picture I found with multiple grd rods :laughing:


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

The 4 foot rods will not qualify as electrodes. You need to have 8' in contact with the soil.

You can add a jumper of #6 between the old and new rods. You will need an acorn clamp for each conductor.


----------



## rrolleston (Oct 17, 2011)

If you are worried about a ground I would make sure you have two 8 foot ground rods with a continuous run of #4 wire and connect it to your main panels ground/neutral buss.

4 foot rods sound like a waste of time to me.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Ok, it sounds like I'll be running some copper wire from my new subpanel and connecting it to the existing 8ft ground rod and then on to the new 8ft ground rod (continous). 

Is there any issue with having a gradual bend, as I'm depicting, with the new copper wire? 

Thanks, Ralph


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

You do not run from the subpanel. Your grounding comes from your service panel.

The grounding for the subpanel is in the 4 wire feeder from the service panel.


----------



## Yoyizit (Jul 11, 2008)

plummen said:


> This way has always made sense to me anyway


This arrangement gives you a Single Point Ground (at the service box), which probably has no electrical disadvantages.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

In the sketch shown in post 18 both the conductors from the panel to the 8' rod and from the phone to the conductor going to the 8' rod are correct. Just add a piece of #6 from the first rod to another 8' rod driven at least 6' from the first 8' rod.


----------



## zappa (Nov 25, 2011)

Jim Port said:


> In the sketch shown in post 18 both the conductors from the panel to the 8' rod and from the phone to the conductor going to the 8' rod are correct. Just add a piece of #6 from the first rod to another 8' rod driven at least 6' from the first 8' rod.


Jim, do you mean add another rod so he has a total of three 8' rods?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

No, just connect the two 8' rods with a piece of #6.


----------



## zappa (Nov 25, 2011)

K thanks, I saw that wire connecting the 2 rods 18" below the surface and was confused.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I interpreted that as coming from the sub.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Jim Port said:


> You do not run from the subpanel. Your grounding comes from your service panel.
> 
> The grounding for the subpanel is in the 4 wire feeder from the service panel.


 
Thanks Jim,
I'll run a new copper ground wire from the load center neutral buss to the existing 8ft ground rod and then on to the second 8ft ground rod.


If someone could answer this question as it has yet to be addressed.

I do prefer to run a second copper ground wire from the load center to the ground rod due to noted concerns with existing copper wire (bends & size). If for no other reason piece of mind.

Anyhow, is a gradual bend as I've depicted in post #18 ok? It is shown as coming from the sub panel but will actually come from the load center. 


God Bless


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Ralph, there is no need to go back into the panel buss. You can just jumper between the two rods.

As far as the bend, why not come straight down and place the sweep under the dirt? I think it would look better. The way it is installed with the off angle bend would drive me nuts as it looks like someone did not care what it looked like. Functionally it is fine.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Jim Port said:


> Ralph, there is no need to go back into the panel buss. You can just jumper between the two rods.
> 
> As far as the bend, why not come straight down and place the sweep under the dirt? I think it would look better. The way it is installed with the off angle bend would drive me nuts as it looks like someone did not care what it looked like. Functionally it is fine.


 
Just to confirm:

I should simply connect the two ground rods together and you feel the existing copper wire, running from the meter, is perfectly fine.

I will address the bends however as that was a tacky way of doing it.

Take care.


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

Ralph III said:


> Just to confirm:
> 
> I should simply connect the two ground rods together and you feel the existing copper wire, running from the meter, is perfectly fine.
> 
> ...


 
Your utility is fed underground. That means your risk of transient damage is much lower than an aerial fed power line. I think you are solving a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

curiousB said:


> Your utility is fed underground. That means your risk of transient damage is much lower than an aerial fed power line. I think you are solving a problem that doesn't exist.


Well maybe, but I'd rather be safe than sorry especially considering how cheap it is to add a second ground rod.

Just FYI, that underground utility feed to our house comes from overhead wires and a light pole about 30ft away.

Take care,
Ralph


----------



## Yoyizit (Jul 11, 2008)

Ralph III said:


> Well maybe, but I'd rather be safe than sorry especially considering how cheap it is to add a second ground rod.
> 
> Just FYI, that underground utility feed to our house comes from overhead wires and a light pole about 30ft away.
> 
> ...


Still, I'd think that the underground part would act like a distributed resistance and distributed capacitance and so somewhat lessen the effect of a lightning strike.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Yoyizit said:


> Still, I'd think that the underground part would act like a distributed resistance and distributed capacitance and so somewhat lessen the effect of a lightning strike.


Yoyizit, with due respect I think you're completely misguided! It goes against my understanding and everything I've ever read. 

You can look for more authoratative sources but *this site* sums it up: _"When lightning strikes near a power line, whether it's underground, in a building or running along poles, the electrical energy can boost electrical pressure by millions of volts..."_

Otherwise, you can read about specific lightning surges from the *NOAA* site.

I gain nothing by having some of my utility ran underground other than it looks better cosmetically... 


Take care....


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

curiousB said:


> I think you are solving a problem that doesn't exist.


I COMPLETELY agree. 
Considering the existing circumstances, ANYTHING done here is for the OP's peace of mind, not really much more than that.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Ralph III said:


> 2) A whole house surge protector will be useless if not installed properly or grounded adequately. All insurance claims will be denied minus such.


And what purpose do you think sticking a piece of metal rod in the dirt is going to do? 
"All claims"?? Got any documentation to back that up? I think your insurance claim comment is more scare tactics than anything. 






Ralph III said:


> I'd rather protect my family and assets by installing a second $25.00 ground rod, as required in many states to insure adequacy, then sit around and post hypothesis as to other's unknown situations!


Again, what purpose do you think sticking a piece of metal rod in the dirt is going to do?

Even though they help with nearby strikes, even a hundred ground rods will not suppress a bad enough lightning strike.


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

Well whole home surge won't hurt but it might not help. Sure extra ground rods won't hurt but they may not help either.

There is a problem with surges for devices which cross connect two or more utilities. Power and phone lines (including xDSL), cable and power, cable and power and phone.

The phenomenon is due to differential ground bounce. The principal defence against this problem isn't more ground rods but a very high integrity bonding of the utilities coming into the home at the entrance point. This way they are assured to not drift (called common mode) much relative to each other.

The building inspectors usually just check NEC grounding requirements for the electrical panel. You should check to see if the phone/Internet, and cable company bonded to that same point with a suitable gauge wire. If you have satellite the same goes. Bond to this common point.

Lets just agree to disagree on the underground vs overhead. To say they have equal vulernabilities is just misleading.


----------



## zappa (Nov 25, 2011)

This is actually refreshing in a strange sort of way. Someone worrying more about ground rods than the End Of Civilization.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

> Speedy Petey; "And what purpose do you think sticking a piece of metal rod in the dirt is going to do?
> "All claims"?? Got any documentation to back that up? I think your insurance claim comment is more scare tactics than anything".


You can read the documentation of surge equipment in regards to "warranty" or "guarantee" yourself. It clearly states how the equipment must be installed and by whom it is installed by. Otherwise, you're welcome to contact Denise Behers and/or Stephen Ploszay of Siemens Industry, Inc. Those are the people I've been consulting with in regards....

In addition, Insurance companies themselves can deny a claim if there is an improperly installed breaker, otherwise non-compatible, as members here have noted themselves.

If you want to put that notion to a test then do so at your own risk. 



> Speedy Petey; "Again, what purpose do you think sticking a piece of metal rod in the dirt is going to do?
> 
> Even though they help with nearby strikes, even a hundred ground rods will not suppress a bad enough lightning strike."


You just completely contradicted yourself and single handedly destroyed your last point, when you stated, _"*ANYTHING* done here is for the OP's peace of mind, not really much more than that"._ 

Now you state, "_Even though *they help* with nearby strikes....."_

My whole thread was in regards to implementing a system by which spikes/surges could be limited. *Where* did I ever state anything about making my house immune from ALL surges, such as lightning strikes? That's not possible and I fully understand that. 

However, we have personally sustained several surges large enough to damage printers, tv's, alarm equipment and alarm wiring. To take issue with implementing a system to help protect against such is just silly, with due respect.

God Bless


P.S. I appreciated the help!!!


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

There is nothing wrong with improving or reassuring a properly grounded electrical system when installing whole house surge protection. It is required by the manufacturers ,square d , siemens etc... to insure the devices work as designed.

Without a test to prove he has 25 ohms or less on the first rod he has little choice but to add ground rod(s). 

Most SPD manufacturers recommend that you have 2 eight foot rods. This is typical of most homes in the USA. He only has one he needs two.

Ralph

Are you using cascading surge protection ? That is the best method from what I have been researching. Also the power companies in many areas offer surge protection at the homes meter. I had them install it on my home and I installed a 3 rd 8' ground rod where it tested less than 25 ohms for the system. I recommend you pay for a test. 

As you say your wanting to protect your home and electronic assests as best as possible so your doing exactly what you need to do. There is no 100% protection but you absolutely can prevent damage to your electronics in many events involving lighting using proper surge protection along with proper electrical system grounding as the two go hand in hand.

I was stating in my first post that you cannot achieve that with 4 foot grounding rods .... I wish you had a ufer ground .... . 

What manufacturerz SPD are you looking at?


----------



## westom (Aug 23, 2009)

Speedy Petey said:


> Again, what purpose do you think sticking a piece of metal rod in the dirt is going to do?


 Everything. That is the only component of every protection system that does protection. Protection is always defined by where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate.

Ralph is quite correct. Makes no difference whether a wire is overhead or underground. Any incoming wire can be a source of destructive surges if not earthed before entering a building. Nothing new. If any overhead or underground wire enters without earthing, then protection is compromised. These concepts have been understood for over 100 years. But are rarely understood by technicians who, for example, do not understand wire impedance and other critical concepts.

Essential for protection is single point earth ground. Anyone familiar with ground loops would better understand why single point earth ground is critical.

How important is earth ground? The NIST (US government agency that studies this stuff) is blunt:


> A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.


 Ralph is also correct about eliminating sharp wire bends. Sharp wire bends, splices, or a wire inside metallic conduit is no problem when wiring does human safety. Any of those mistakes compromise what a 'whole house' protector might do. Make it ‘useless’.

No protector does protection. As the NIST says, protection is defined by how well a protector connects even direct lightning strikes (20,000 amps) harmlessly to earth. That earthing must be sufficient so that even direct lightning strikes cause no damage.

Damage to electronics is so routinely averted as to be considered human failure. For example, what defines each layer of protection? Earth ground. Install 1000 protectors inside the house. But with only one earth ground, that is still only one protection layer. But again, what does the protection? Not a protector. Where do hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate?

Ralph's 'whole house' protector is 'secondary' protection. Homeowners are strongly encouraged to inspect their primary protection layer. A picture defines the 'primary' protection layer:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Earthing sufficient only to meet code must be upgraded to provide surge protection. Concepts such as single point earth ground, low impedance (ie a 'less than 10 foot' connection from breaker box to earth), wire not inside metallic conduit, and ground wires separated from other conductors - all are critical for surge protection. Impedance (not resistance) is critical. Surge protection is installed to earth 50,000 amp surges without any damage even to the protector.

Ufer ground were originally pioneered in muntions dumps so that direct lightning strikes do not cause damage. An earth ground is that important.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Thanks Westom and Stubbie for you input! I truly don't get where some of the others were headed in debating what is clearly noted within the industry.

Stubbie, yes I am implementing a tiered level of protection starting at my load center>then to subpanels>then point of use, etc. I did research ufer grounds but noted they can be prone to damage when taking a large surge due to moisture retention? I'll just stick with installing a second ground rod as easier for me....

In adding to both of your excellent points though:

*from Safe Electricity.org, an EEC program. 


> *Should I Be Concerned about the Quality of My Electrical Grounding?*
> Yes. A surge protection device is only as effective as the electrical grounding circuit that is made available to it...


*from the IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors)


> *Article 250 – Grounding and Bonding*
> Establishing a solid foundation for a safe TVSS installation starts with the grounding and bonding system...
> *250-2. General Requirements for Grounding and Bonding*
> ...The connections of the grounding electrode, grounding electrode conductor, and the bonding jumper are important to facilitate a safe, low resistance path to ground for any surge current being diverted by a TVSS. When adding a TVSS to an existing electrical system, *it is important* to reinspect the grounding system to ensure a safe and effective path for the surge current.


***from Emerson Industrial Automation (otherwise check such as Siemens)


> The safety and performance of any Surge Protective Device (SPD) system *is dependent* on correct grounding...


*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

curiousB, I never said there were absolutely no benefits to underground power lines versus overhead! However, our power comes from overhead pole/lines thirty feet from our house. It only runs underground for that short distance.

A mute point however. Lightning strikes or other transient surges can cause damaging surges to households from miles away.

I'll catch ya'll on another thread.
Take care


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Ralph III said:


> In addition, Insurance companies themselves can deny a claim if there is an improperly installed breaker, otherwise non-compatible, as members here have noted themselves.


I know for a fact that this is untrue. 






Ralph III said:


> You just completely contradicted yourself and single handedly destroyed your last point, when you stated, _"*ANYTHING* done here is for the OP's peace of mind, not really much more than that"._
> 
> Now you state, "_Even though *they help* with nearby strikes....."_


Not at all. And nice try BTW.
I never said ground rods don't do anything, although I don't think they do very much at all *by themselves*. I did say that anything more you do in YOUR situation will be for YOUR peace of mind. 
I didn't read the instructions for your unit nor do I care to.


----------



## westom (Aug 23, 2009)

Speedy Petey said:


> I never said ground rods don't do anything, although I don't think they do very much at all *by themselves*.


 Some protection system have no protector. But every protection system always has the one required component - earth ground. 

For example, does a lightning rod do protection? Of course not. That rod, like a protector, is only a connecting device. That lightning rod is only as effective as its earth ground. As a FL couple discovered.

Lightning repeatedly struck one exterior wall. So they installed lightning rods. Lightning struck the same wall again. An investigation revealed their rods were connected to eight foot ground rods in sand. Lightning found a better path to deeper and more conductive soil. It was striking bathroom pipes that connected to more conductive earth.

The solution was simple. Better earthing with longer ground rods. Then lightning stopped striking that bathroom wall. 

A lightning rod (or protector) is only as effective as the only item that defines protection. Earth ground. Geology is important. Where do hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate? What defines how every protector works? Its earth ground.

Any protector that does not have that low impedance connection is ineffective. Either a protector connects energy to earth. Or a protector must magically block and absorb that energy. Where do hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate? A valid recommendation will always answer that question. 

Plug-in protectors can be so grossly undersized as to disconnect from a surge as fast as possible. Leaving the appliance to protect itself (as reported by the indicator light). Sometimes that disconnecting device (typically a thermal fuse) does not disconnect fast enough. Then a house fire may result. Does not happen often. But it does happen. Even in Australia where a fire house burned down. Some rather sheepish firemen learned about power strip protectors the hard way.

Another reason for upgraded earthing. To absorb surges so as to protect plug-in protectors. Protection is always about where that energy dissipates. Grounding for surge protection is so critical that it must exceed code requirements. 'Low impedance' (not resistance) is a critically important parameter.

Last I heard, they were still arguing over the insurance on a large commercial building. Fire was traced to circuit breakers. Some insurance company was withholding payment. Meanwhile circuit breakers do not trip on surges. Circuit breakers and surge protection are two completely different topics and anomalies.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

I stated that Insurance Companies may possibly deny claims due to improper breaker installation/compatability and that other members have noted that as well. 


> Speedy Petey; "I know for a *fact* that this is untrue".


 Really? My brother-in-laws family owned an Insurance Company, although he wasn't involved in Home Owners policies, he could probably tell you a few things in regards to grounds for denying claims. 


Anyhow, this is from Southwest Premier Home Inspection, LLC.


> "If there is ever an insurance claim on the home due to a fire or electrical problem, a mismatched breaker and panel voids the UL rating of the panel and therefore *gives the insurance company a reason to deny the claim*.


This is a quote by A_Lost_Shadow


> "As a word of warning, I've read that insurance companies can often weasel out of paying fire claims if they can find electrical modifications made without a permit. #1 (non UL approved) and/or #2(improper installation) could provide the justification they need to deny a claim".


With due respect Speedy Peetey, you're living in fairy land if you think an Insurance Company would never deny a claim with gross and improper electrical installation by homeowners. 




> Speedy Peetey; "Not at all. And nice try BTW.
> I never said ground rods don't do anything, although I don't think they do very much at all *by themselves*. I did say that anything more you do in YOUR situation will be for YOUR peace of mind..."


 Speedy Peetey, this entire thread has been about my whole house surge project and whether I needed to install a second ground rod for it. However, you agreed with CuriousB who made the bold statement I should have little concern with transient damage, as my power ran underground, and as such I was _"...solving a problem that doesn't exist.". _

He of course made that comment before I noted we had indeed suffered from "transient damage"... 

If you want to now limit your agreement specifically to the ground rod that is fine; however, I had already stated myself it was for my own _"...piece of mind", _if nothing else.(#26).

I still don't agree with you though and nor are you in a position to know whether I have adequate earth ground!


take care,
Ralph


----------



## bud-- (Oct 24, 2011)

westom said:


> Plug-in protectors can be so grossly undersized as to disconnect from a surge as fast as possible. Leaving the appliance to protect itself (as reported by the indicator light).


Nobody was talking about plug-in protectors, but westom is on a crusade against them. He googles for "surge" to post his 'wisdom'.

For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

Both say plug-in protectors are effective.



westom said:


> Sometimes that disconnecting device (typically a thermal fuse) does not disconnect fast enough. Then a house fire may result.


Since 1998 UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs (protection elements).



westom said:


> Another reason for upgraded earthing. To absorb surges so as to protect plug-in protectors.


Compete idiocy.

============================
The author of the NIST surge guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."

That is, work on short ground wires from entry protectors from phone and cable to a common connection point on the earthing system. An example of a ground wire that is too long is in the IEEE surge guide starting page 30. This is the same point made in post #38 by curiousB.

Ground rods suck. That is why the code wants a test for 25 ohms, or just use 2 rods. About everyone just uses 2 rods.

If you have a strong surge to earth of 1,000A and a miraculously low resistance to earth of 10 ohms with ground rods, the building 'ground' will rise 10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the protection is that all wires - power, phone, cable, ... - rise together.

The OP's phone entry protector has a 10 ft ground wire to the earthing system. This is at about the maximum length you want but should be OK.

If you have a very near lightning strike, separate ground rods (like the one the OP suggests adding at the phone entry) can be at very different potentials. I would only connect the phone protector to the earthing system, not a bonded ground rod.

I agree with others that you don't want earthing from the subpanel. If you add earthing from the load center, the earthing wire loop back to the meter is in parallel with the neutral which is undesirable. Particularly if you add a surge protector at the meter base I would just extend the wire from the meter to a second rod.

Bends in the grounding electrode conductor are not a problem. Just don't make sharp bends.


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

bud-- said:


> .... The author of the NIST surge guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than *the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system*."......


 
Exactly as I stated. Ensure all your entrance utilitities are bonded to the same point.... Common bonding is the key. If you have utilities entering different sides of the house and grounding to different ground rods (or with very long wire runs to the ground rod) that is not a good formula.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Ralph III said:


> I stated that Insurance Companies *may possibly* deny claims *due to improper breaker installation/compatability *and that other members have noted that as well.
> Really? My brother-in-laws family *owned* an Insurance Company, *although he wasn't involved in Home Owners policies*, he could probably tell you a few things in regards to grounds for denying claims.
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't going to address this any further, but you are just inviting it. 
LOOK at what you are saying. 
- Your B-I-L's family, that never dealt with home owner's policies. 
- A link to some home inspector's web site. Well, if it's written there is must be true, right? :icon_rolleyes: Sorry, but a home inspector is one of the last people I will take electrical advice from.
- A quote from someone on a message board saying _"*I've read* that insurance companies can often..."_ Again, he read it somewhere, and if it's written it must be correct, right? :icon_rolleyes:







Ralph III said:


> With due respect Speedy Peetey, you're living in fairy land if you think an Insurance Company *would never* deny a claim with *gross and improper electrical installation* by homeowners.


And now you are putting words in my mouth, and directly contradicting what you are saying above where you say _"..*may possibly* deny claims *due to improper breaker installation/compatability *"_.
I NEVER used the word never. I also didn't say anything about "gross and improper electrical installations". These are YOUR words.
I am friends with the owner of one of the biggest insurance agent in my area, and according to him and others I have spoken with, the only time they can actually deny a claim is if poor work and the resulting damage is found to be done *intentionally*. In a case like this I think the last thing you should worry about is the insurance claim. I think the fraud police will be more of an issue. :whistling2:
This is not to say they will not drop you after the fact, but even then that is pretty common even for legitimate claims.


All this said, please do not bother to reply. I am done with this thread.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Well, I'm sorry this divulged into such a debate.


I only pointed out things for which I felt were inaccurate and possibly poor advice. I've backed up what I've stated from other links of which many more could be referenced. Otherwise, call your Insurance Company on this particular point. Take it or leave it! 


> Speedy Peetey; "And now you are putting words in my mouth....
> I NEVER used the word *never*. I also didn't say anything about "gross and improper electrical installations". These are YOUR words..."


Yes, those are my words and nowhere did I ever attribute them to you!

In addition, I said Insurance Companies _"*can*"_ deny a claim _"...if there is an *improperly* installed breaker, otherwise *non*-compatible...". _You responded emphatically and absolutely by saying you know for a "FACT" that is "untrue". Those are your words. I never said "all" claims would be denied.....

Now you clarify by saying you have Insurance friends who say _"...the only time they can actually deny a claim is if poor work and the resulting damage is found to be done *intentionally*."_


*A homeowner who installs a "non-compatible" UL rated breaker in their panel can create an electrical or fire hazard! TRUE or FALSE

*A homeowner who installs a breaker too large for the circuit wire, such as could cause an electrical hazard or fire, and does so contrary to what a qualified electrician/inspector might have told him, shows not only ignorance but willful neglect. TRUE or FALSE 

*A homeowner who purposefully and improperly modifies their panel to accomodate a "non-compatible" UL rated breaker; otherwise fails to wire a breaker properly(some have neutral wires) can cause electrical or fire hazards otherwise negate safety features thereof! TRUE or FALSE

*A homeowner who purposefully does electrical modifications to their home without aquiring proper permits, in order to accomodate their "non-compatible" UL rated breaker can not only create fire and electrical hazards but also breaks a number of local ordinances as well as NEC codes! TRUE or FALSE 


Speedy, I've seen some of the most rediculous electrical wiring scenarios imageanable including straight hook-ups by the POCO themselves. There is no doubt in my mind had a fire occured in some of these instances an Insurance claim would have been denied or challenged, especially if life and limb were involved. You however have never come across such?


We may have to simply agree to disagree. 

take care, Ralph


----------



## westom (Aug 23, 2009)

Ralph III said:


> I only pointed out things for which I felt were inaccurate and possibly poor advice. I've backed up what I've stated from other links of which many more could be referenced.


 Ralph's advise is correct. Some other replies were only wasted bandwidth intended only as cheapshots. Citing Transactional Analysis is what the least informed and educated would post to subvert all useful discussion. Posted when they cannot reply with knowledge or grace.

 Ralph discussed surge protection as has been understood for over 100 years. To be effective, a protector must be located to be low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot' wire from the breaker box to earth ground) to provide effective protection. No way around over 100 years of well proven science.

 Common grounding (single point earth ground) is critically important. But only required for a protector that actually does protection. Many recommend protectors that have no earth ground because advertising replaces knowledge. Some believe an underground wire has surge protection when 100 years of well proven science says otherwise.

 Critical to protection (as in it must always exist) is an earth ground upgraded to both meet and exceed code requirements. Posting about the DSM-IV to call Ralph mentally sick was wasted bandwidth. A cheapshot. That waste should have been apparent to everyone. Meanwhile, Ralph's discussion was spot on accurate.


----------



## rrolleston (Oct 17, 2011)

This looks like a mickey mouse contraption. I think you would be much better off installing good grounding at your main panel. There are way too many splices/paths in your idea. Install sub panel move a couple of your circuits to the sub panel and install the surge protection in the main panel.



Ralph III said:


> Ok, it sounds like I'll be running some copper wire from my new subpanel and connecting it to the existing 8ft ground rod and then on to the new 8ft ground rod (continous).
> 
> Is there any issue with having a gradual bend, as I'm depicting, with the new copper wire?
> 
> Thanks, Ralph


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

rrolleston said:


> This looks like a mickey mouse contraption. I think you would be much better off installing good grounding at your main panel. There are way too many splices/paths in your idea. Install sub panel move a couple of your circuits to the sub panel and install the surge protection in the main panel.


 Thanks rrolleston. I've since decided to do it exactly as you describe.

Have a good day


----------



## bud-- (Oct 24, 2011)

Ralph III said:


> *A homeowner who installs a "non-compatible" UL rated breaker in their panel can create an electrical or fire hazard! TRUE or FALSE


Very unlikely.



Ralph III said:


> *A homeowner who installs a breaker too large for the circuit wire, such as could cause an electrical hazard or fire, and does so contrary to what a qualified electrician/inspector might have told him, shows not only ignorance but willful neglect. TRUE or FALSE


Who said anything about a breaker - or fuse - that was too large.



Ralph III said:


> *A homeowner who purposefully and improperly modifies their panel to accomodate a "non-compatible" UL rated breaker; otherwise fails to wire a breaker properly(some have neutral wires) can cause electrical or fire hazards otherwise negate safety features thereof! TRUE or FALSE


You don't have to modify the panel to install the breakers your home inspector site is talking about. The home inspection sited is wrong, by the way. In some cases there are breakers that can be installed that are not from the panel manufacturer. For instance someone makes breakers that can be installed in SquareD QO panels. They are UL "classified".

The only breakers that have a neutral connection that you are likely to see are GFCI and AFCI. Without a load neutral they will immediately trip on any load.

I pretty much agree with Speedy Petey on insurance, including that home inspector sites can have poor information.




westom said:


> Many recommend protectors that have no earth ground because advertising replaces knowledge.


By which westom continues his crusade against plug-in protectors. Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides "recommend" plug-in protectors. Westom is just not smart enough to figure out how they work.



westom said:


> Critical to protection (as in it must always exist) is an earth ground upgraded to both meet and exceed code requirements.


I have doubts an second rod would add much, but it is not hard to add. If added as Ralph proposes, with the telephone entry protector tied to the second rod, it will decrease protection and violate "single point ground" principles.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Bud,

1) A mismatched non UL approved breaker can heat up due to possible poor contact. Any poorly spliced wiring(hot) can heat up and cause fire hazards. The likelihood of such occuring is irrelevant when peoples lives are at stake. The NEC has plenty of codes addressing such and there is a reason an effort is made to list UL approved breakers. 

I can't beleive you would bring into question of such but do note you said "unlikely".

2) *I never said* different manufacturers breakers couldn't be used in different panels. We just installed some in my father-in-laws house. It should however be a UL approved (otherwise manufacturer approved) one as I have clearly stated numerous times. Many breakers are no longer available for older construction.

There are threads on the InterNACHI as well as Mike Holts addressing this exact topic. I think it safe to say those professionals do know something about these things.

3) For what ever reason, a challenge was made and stated that an Insurance Company could never deny a claim due to an improperly or otherwise non-compatible breaker installation. 


I am rearranging some wiring and installing a subpanel to my load center, to accomodate a Siemens double pole 20amp surge breaker (QSA2020).

If a homeowner did the project without a permit and then installed a 14 gauge wire into that circuit breaker, it would be a code violation, a local ordinance violation, a manufacturer violation as well as creating a possible fire hazard.

If they did so despite what a qualified electrician had told them they would have engaged in "willful neglect" and a challenge to an Insurance claim could arise with loss of propertly or life, otherwise they could be opening themselves up to a possible lawsuit with such. 


All my points were relevant.


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

jasin said:


> Ground rods should be 6' apart. Yours are not. Only two are required too.


Jason, I only have one ground rod at the moment but will install a second one about 10 ft away. I've made some adjustments to my initial concepts.

In fact, I have a Mike Holts diagram but removed the post due to copyright reasons.

Thanks, Ralph


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

jasin said:


> That setup is a code violation.


That picture was used strictly to show the 2 ground rods bonded with 1 continuous piece of ground wire which is what this post started out being about was bonding multiple grd rods,thats just the first picture that popped up


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

So which part is a code violation?


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

The clamp will go under ground with it,just keep hitting it with a hammer thats how i drive them in


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

jasin said:


> I agree with the "1 continuous piece of ground wire". That's definitely the best way to do it when connecting two grounding rods. :thumbsup:


It may be considered by some to be a better installation, but it is NOT code required to be continuous. 
The wire between the two rods is s _*bonding jumper*_.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

Youre not doing it right,if that clamp is on there like it should be and the ground isnt all rocks it will go right in to decent dirt.
In hard ground i usually pour water around the base of the rod when I start driving it ,if Im feeling lazy and I have a tractor sitting there a back hoe bucket is handy for pushing them in.
If the ground is totally hard ass trash you can dig a little around the top and backfill a couple inches of dirt around it.
Yes I was a contractor back in the days when it was cool to be a contractor,now Im just a retired professional jack off trying to keep from being bored! :laughing:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

jasin said:


> NOT unless you dig around it first. It will pop off if not. I've personally seen it happen.


Not in soft or sandy soil. :no:


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> It may be considered by some to be a better installation, but it is NOT code required to be continuous.
> The wire between the two rods is s _*bonding jumper*_.


I just like it on the occasions when I do have to use 2 rods its 1 less mechanical joint that I have to worry about is all


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

plummen said:


> I just like it on the occasions when I do have to use 2 rods its 1 less mechanical joint that I have to worry about is all


Oh, I agree, it's definitely easier to just pass the conductor through the first acorn then on to the other. It's just not code required.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

That and if somebodies kids were out there playing around with dads cresent wrench(you know like most of us did! :laughingand happens to pull the clamp lose on the 1st one the clamp will still be looped on the wire and the other end will still be hooked hopefully


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

Word of advice to everyone here. DO NOT hire any contractor that does not get permits and inspections. Even if the contractor claims it's not required. These kind of contractors are lazy and lazy contractors are the kind of people who will mess up any work they're doing and not even care. They are by no means professional. This is your house, where you live, you do not want people messing it up.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

It depends on what the job is,many places dont require a permit for jobs under $500.00


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

jasin said:


> I should not have to explain to a contractor the relationship between fully burring a ground rod and having a low-resistance grounding system.


 In most cases grounding rods will NOT provide a low resistance grounding system. The code also says rods should me at least 6' apart not exactly 6' apart.


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

jasin said:


> Resistance depends on the soil conductivity and how deep the rod is buried not the fact that its a rod. Also, by code a second rod does not need used if the resistance is below 25ohms. see: Nec 250.53


 No kidding?


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

brric said:


> No kidding?


If you knew all that then what was the point of this:



brric said:


> In most cases grounding rods will NOT provide a low resistance grounding system.


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

jasin said:


> If you knew all that then what was the point of this:


 The point was that your belief that ground rods provide a low resistance electrode is many times incorrect.


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

brric said:


> The point was that your belief that ground rods provide a low resistance electrode is many times incorrect.


:furious: Please stop making stuff up!!!!!!!!!! I never said any one grounding system is low-resistance or lower resistance in comparison to another. I only stated the grounding system should be low-resistance, below 25ohms, as this is what's required by code.


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

plummen said:


> Now ya notice Brric's avitar says master electrician,Ive got a few licenses,Speedey Petey is licensed,Jim Port is licensed.........?
> Are you catching a pattern here Jasin?:whistling2:


I'm going to continue to stand by my, do it right to begin with. :yes: :biggrin:


----------



## Techy (Mar 16, 2011)

But it's only required to be below 25 Ohms if you're using a single rod. 

Drive a 2nd and nobody cares what it is, it could be 2000 ohms..


----------



## Ralph III (Oct 7, 2011)

Jasin,

I'm going to go ten feet with the second ground rod simply because that puts it directly under my phone and satelite entry boxes/ground wires.

Siemens and some others (maybe Mike Holts) depict and/or recommend installing the additional ground rods in close proximity of such equipment. It's won't cost but a few dollars more so no biggie.

I did not realize ground rods were supposed to be driven completely underground though! Virtually every ground rod I've ever seen in Alabama and Mississippi are all clamped just above the surface. Is that a new code? 

Thanks.


P.S. Much of this has been hashed over already so maybe better to let some points rest. 


Now back to :boat:


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

jasin said:


> I'm not using google i'm using my brain. Nevertheless, the equation is: R=2paR



Not hardly ..... I would suggest 'grounding' google ... :wink: 


Though it has been entertaining I would suggest that all the BS come to an end.
No one here ..including me... has any business trying to pass themselves off as someone who knows anything about soil resistivity testing, ground rod resistance or what is actually considered a low resistance ground for purposes of equipment protection like computers and entertainment systems. 

These calculations are done by engineers using computer software to deal with the math. It is involved ... to say the least. Which is why they have test equipment for field use ... :thumbsup:

You are very limited as a home owner as to what you have the capability to accomplish. Unless your pockets are giant deep.

You cannot reach levels of low resistance of 2 or 3 ohms which is required in order to have maximum capabiltiy to protect sensistive equipment with 8' ground rods. In fact your going to be lucky to have 25 ohms average resistance for multiple rods. You might not be able to get below 100 ohms. So adding ground rods by more than 2 may not gain you a dang thing.

To get this so called low resistance you would need to get your ground rods 30 feet deep or more. I understand you can use a variety chemicals poured in the bored hole after setting a ground rod to increase soil contact which will also help for a shallow driven ground rod....30 feet or less.

Also remember lightning doesn't much care about ground rod resistance or soil resistance it will overcome it easily. So about all you can do is protect your home from transient voltages and power company surges and proximity lighting strikes that are containable with the technology available to a home owner. Many of these events you will not have anything that is going to save the day so to speak.

You need also remember the NEC did not have in mind saving your electronics by augmenting with grounding rod or rods. They were wanting premise system grounding to protect your homes wiring and keep the spikes within the insulation of your wires and a few other concerns like potential differences on metal and voltage stabilization in the event of a lost service neutral.. 

Now the brief summary I'm posting has nothing to do with my knowledge ... I'm sitting here reading over some books I have (some old some new) on achieving a low resistance ground for the protection of sensitive equipment. And it is apparent to me you are very limited in accomplishing that with shallow driven ground rods.

Just my two cents worth.

Stubbie


----------



## Gary in WA (Mar 11, 2009)

Well, that wraps up another one when a few can't play together it ruins it for the rest.

OP, if any more questions, please start another thread, thank you, Gary


----------

