# House Panel Not Grounded to Water Pipe



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

Why do you have to run the ground all the way to the meter? Isn't there an exposed water pipe somewhere closer??

I know Chicago has some very strange electrical codes. I've never lived where the panel had to be grounded to the water pipes. If you have a ground rod (really should have two) I don't see the reason for it. What would you do if your water piping wasn't metal (like CPVC or Pex)??


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

I have had two electricians say that it has to be grounded to the water pipe. I have also heard Chicago code is wired. Unfortunately, I live in Chicago so I have to deal with it. Going to try to find the code tonight. 

One electrician said the pex pipe does screw things up. Maybe there is an alternative.


----------



## ritelec (Aug 30, 2009)

it says if the grounding electrode (which is your water pipe )exists then it has to be bonded to the neutral at the panel.

If you did not have a metal water pipe, then you would bond the metal water piping elsewhere for the sake of bonding the water system..

Does it have to be piped?

Can you bring it outside then come back in?


----------



## mako1 (Jan 7, 2014)

I also live in IL.Being a contractor have built several houses although not an electrician.If your panel is properly grounded to a ground rod what is the point of it being grounded to a water pipe?Just bought a 6" ground rod the other day for $28.
If they do in fact require it to be grounded to a water pipe as well you are looking at some single conductor wire and two clamps.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

mako1 said:


> I also live in IL.Being a contractor have built several houses although not an electrician.If your panel is properly grounded to a ground rod what is the point of it being grounded to a water pipe?Just bought a 6" ground rod the other day for $28.
> If they do in fact require it to be grounded to a water pipe as well you are looking at some single conductor wire and two clamps.


What if the water line became energized? 


Code requires you to bond to water pipes, and if the water pipe coming in from the street metal you have the best ground rod on earth.


----------



## Jnaas2 (Mar 29, 2014)

If the water pipe is metal and more then 10 feet is buried under ground then it is required to be used, And the connection must be made within 5 feet of it entering the house. And the other catch is if it can become energized then there is to be a bonding jumper at water heater and anywhere there is a break in the metal water pipe, Do you have gas pipe its required to be bonded to


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

The water pipe is at least 10' into the ground. One electrician suggested running the coy suit out the back of the house, down the side to the front and back into the house to connect to the water pipe. I have gas pipe but it is nearly all in the wall with finished drywall. None near the panel.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

drelldrell said:


> One electrician said the pex pipe does screw things up. Maybe there is an alternative.


Answer two important questions:
1) Is the main water pipe coming in from the street/well metallic (copper/galvanized)?
2) How much Pex/plastic piping do you have in the house.

I absolutely HATE the word "grounding", because it automatically makes people, especially lay people, think of the brown dirt ground outside. This is NOT always the case. 
Also, bonding is another very important thing that is completely separate from, but related to, grounding.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

The main water pipe coming in off the street is copper. I have all copper piping for plumbing, there is no plex. 

What is bonding? Not familiar with this term. Also not an electrician. Thanks.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

drelldrell said:


> The main water pipe coming in off the street is copper. I have all copper piping for plumbing, there is no plex.
> 
> What is bonding? Not familiar with this term. Also not an electrician. Thanks.


Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.

The beauty is if you are grounding water pipes to code that takes care of bonding unless you have any pex between pipes.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Bonding is where everything is connected together so that there is no difference of potential between objects. Effectively making you a bird on the wire.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

Jump-start said:


> Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.
> 
> The beauty is if you are grounding water pipes to code that takes care of bonding unless you have any pex between pipes.


Sounds like the work should be completed. I know have a better understanding of grounding and bonding. What was explained to me today be the electrician sounds exactly like what you just mentioned.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

drelldrell said:


> Sounds like the work should be completed. I know have a better understanding of grounding and bonding. What was explained to me today be the electrician sounds exactly like what you just mentioned.


I agree, it should be completed. At this point you have a code violation without it. 

If you ever want an in depth view on grounding and bonding this one of the best videos ever hands down. In the least start from 34:50 where it debunks common myths. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpgAVE4UwFw


----------



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

Could be worse, I guess. A few years ago I worked on a Habitat for Humanity build in Colorado. There, the rebar in the foundation had to be grounded. Sure never heard of that before or since.


----------



## ritelec (Aug 30, 2009)

Ufer. It's become mandatory here on all new work. 

Was thinking about the water meter bonding to the service neutral. You actually would be grounding/earthing the neutral and bonding to the water system at the same time.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

md2lgyk said:


> Could be worse, I guess. A few years ago I worked on a Habitat for Humanity build in Colorado. There, the rebar in the foundation had to be grounded. Sure never heard of that before or since.


As ritelec says, it is mandatory on new builds if rebar exists.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

md2lgyk said:


> Could be worse, I guess. A few years ago I worked on a Habitat for Humanity build in Colorado. There, the rebar in the foundation had to be grounded. Sure never heard of that before or since.



Its essential. If the service neutral broke do you really want the floor you walk on to be at an opposite potential as everything else?

Further ground rods become optional with a UFER. because foundation is in contact with soil at lot more.


----------



## sparky90 (Aug 1, 2014)

drelldrell said:


> Hello all,
> I bought a house about 18 months ago that went through a gut rehab including new 200 amp service. I had an electrician out today to add a few outlets and he informed me that I do not have the panel grounded to the water connection or main water pipe as required by code. I'm in Chicago, Illinois. There is what appears to be an 6-8 foot ground rod buried near the new electrical meter.
> 
> Is this a big deal? It may cost $800 to fix as I would have the ground ran from panel in the back of the house to the water pipe in the ground of the house - about 60 feet. Since its a fully finished basement, the grond will run through conduit from the back of the house to the front sidewall to make it to the meter.
> ...


It sounds as though that house has had an upgrade to 200 amps at some recent point in time. If that is the case, when the upgrade was done it should have been required to bond the water pipe at that time!! It needs to be bonded within 5 feet of where it enters the house AND if the piping is metal the meter needs to be jumped. It is very important to have the metal piping system bonded. AT this point it would be better than nothing to bond the electrical system at the neutral bar of the main panel to the nearest cold water pipe to the panel. The way it stands it is non compliant and dangerous, though bonding the system to the nearest cold water pipe is not up to todays code it is still better to do it than leave it as is. The right way to do it is to bond it at the entrance but it is what it is at this point and so bonding close by will serve the intended purpose but it still would be technically non compliant.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

sparky90 said:


> It sounds as though that house has had an upgrade to 200 amps at some recent point in time. If that is the case, when the upgrade was done it should have been required to bond the water pipe at that time!! It needs to be bonded within 5 feet of where it enters the house AND if the piping is metal the meter needs to be jumped. It is very important to have the metal piping system bonded. AT this point it would be better than nothing to bond the electrical system at the neutral bar of the main panel to the nearest cold water pipe to the panel. The way it stands it is non compliant and dangerous, though bonding the system to the nearest cold water pipe is not up to todays code it is still better to do it than leave it as is. The right way to do it is to bond it at the entrance but it is what it is at this point and so bonding close by will serve the intended purpose but it still would be technically non compliant.


Thanks all for the information. Going to have it done the right way - to the water pipe coming into the house and jump the meter as well. Just recalled that a city a contractor installed a new water meter with automatic readings about a year ago and didn't metion the lack of bonding. Going to go take another look at how it's connected.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

This morning I went to the aspect the water service coming into the house and the meter. It appears that the meter is jumped, however, I do no see any bonding wire at all. In fact, no other wires. I can see the water service going into the earth/foundation (it in the basement) and the water line going up vertically 7' as it comes into the main water run for the house. 

See the pics. For clarity, the pics are: jumper connection below the water meter, water meter, jumper connection above water meter, and water cutoff.

One day, I will finish the surrounding area.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

md2lgyk said:


> Could be worse, I guess. A few years ago I worked on a Habitat for Humanity build in Colorado. There, the rebar in the foundation had to be grounded. Sure never heard of that before or since.


That is now a requirement in any area that follows the NEC.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

If that wire went back to the panel it would not be large enough for a 200mp service.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.


That's grounding which is not necessarily bonding.

If I place 2 metal objects on an insulated surface and connect them together with wire they are said to be bonded. If however I add an additional wire to one of the bonded objects and connect it to the main water line, those objects are now grounded.

Bonded items are simply items which will remain at the same potential because of the common connection between them. That potential doesn't necessarily have to be ground.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> That's grounding which is not necessarily bonding.
> 
> If I place 2 metal objects on an insulated surface and connect them together with wire they are said to be bonded. If however I add an additional wire to one of the bonded objects and connect it to the main water line, those objects are now grounded.
> 
> Bonded items are simply items which will remain at the same potential because of the common connection between them. That potential doesn't necessarily have to be ground.



Its actually both. Grounding takes place if the pipe is in contact with the earth for a certain amount of feet, bonding is also taking because the water pipes will remain at the same potential as the panel's ground bar as with everything else connected to it. If I took a hot conductor to the pipe it will trip the breaker, and that's the result of bonding rather than grounding. In theory both are happening simultaneously. 

You are correct though, bonding is to make 2 or more objects at the same potential. And if I connect two bonded object to say a ground rod they are grounded in addition to bonded.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

F


Bob Sanders said:


> That's grounding which is not necessarily bonding.
> 
> If I place 2 metal objects on an insulated surface and connect them together with wire they are said to be bonded. If however I add an additional wire to one of the bonded objects and connect it to the main water line, those objects are now grounded.
> 
> Bonded items are simply items which will remain at the same potential because of the common connection between them. That potential doesn't necessarily have to be ground.


What jump-start described was bonding, not grounding. Now as he explained, by virtue of the fact the egc terminal and the water pipe are both in contact with (dirt) earth through the systems they are connected to) they are also grounded but the description given was in fact referring only to a bonding issue. 

If no grounding was involved at all that bonding is what would provide the safety factor intended as a short circuit to the bonded system would allow for a breaker trip plus it would mean there is a zero difference in potential between any two points within the bonded system which would prevent a shock when any two points of the bonded system are contacted by the person. This describes exactly why a pool is required to have an equipotential grid surrounding the water which is not required to be grounded although it is simply by virtue of its contact with (dirt) earth as well as the egc system. 

That is the why bonding (between any conductive material) is more important as a safety factor than actual grounding is.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> That is the why bonding (between any conductive material) is more important as a safety factor than actual grounding is.


I'm pretty sure jump-start knows what bonding is.... just did a not so great job explaining it. Bonding has little to do with grounding and his statement did not make that clear.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

A quick follow-up question. Should the wire used for the grounding, that also acts as bonding, be 4 or 6 gauge wire? One electrician says 4 gauge wire is sufficient, the other says 6 gauge wire. Both say they are doing it per Chicago code. Both also say it must be installed in EMT conduit (from the back of the house externally and re-entering in the front of the house.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> I'm pretty sure jump-start knows what bonding is.... just did a not so great job explaining it. Bonding has little to do with grounding and his statement did not make that clear.


he did a great job explaining what it was; connecting two pieces of conductive materials together. That is all it is. 

he didn't address grounding, I suspect, because he was talking about bonding, not grounding.

You are the one that apparently does not understand bonding as shown by your statement of:



> That's grounding which is not necessarily bonding.


when addressing jump-starts statement of:



> It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects


that is bonding, not necessarily grounding since while it is required and assumed the ground bar in the panel is in fact (earth) grounded, it is irrelevant and unknown concerning the statement made.

Your statement is what was confusing:



> If I place 2 metal objects on an insulated surface and connect them together with wire they are said to be bonded. If however I add an additional wire to one of the bonded objects and connect it to the main water line, those objects are now grounded


Adding the main water line is simply another bonding point. Now, if that water line is also earth grounded, then all of the construct is also grounded, but strangely enough, due to the bonding which is the actual connecting of all the conductive materials to each other.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

drelldrell said:


> A quick follow-up question. Should the wire used for the grounding, that also acts as bonding, be 4 or 6 gauge wire? One electrician says 4 gauge wire is sufficient, the other says 6 gauge wire. Both say they are doing it per Chicago code. Both also say it must be installed in EMT conduit (from the back of the house externally and re-entering in the front of the house.


it's going to be based on Chicago code, if it differs from the NEC


as to it being in conduit 100%; that is a Chicago thing if it is required. Where the NEC rules, it must be placed so it is not subject to damage and if placed where subject to damage, then it must be protected such as with conduit. 


as to size; depends what you are connecting to. Since you have a water pipe the rod is a supplemental electrode and #6 is adequate from the service disconnect to that rod (250.66(A)) but to the water pipe a #4 is required from the service disconnect to the water pipe (250.66 which refers to table 250.66).


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> Adding the main water line is simply another bonding point. Now, if that water line is also earth grounded,


I think you're now playing a game of semantics for the purpose of argument. One which I will not partake in.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> I think you're now playing a game of semantics for the purpose of argument. One which I will not partake in.


semantics? Some would say the entire code is a lesson in semantics. I know many inspectors see it that way. 



but I am not dealing with semantics but simply your improper chastisement of jump-start's statement when you were in the fact in the wrong. He said what he meant and it made total sense to somebody that understands bonding and grounding while it apparently flew over the head of a person that apparently does not grasp the concepts. You were attempting to correct him when his statement was entirely correct as stated. 

but I agree that maybe you should simply refrain from the conversation since you are the one having difficulty grasping the concepts of bonding and grounding. It would be best if you avoided bringing confusion to the thread.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> but I agree that maybe you should simply refrain from the conversation since you are the one having difficulty grasping the concepts of bonding and grounding. It would be best if you avoided bringing confusion to the thread.


I will converse where I wish.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> but I am not dealing with semantics but simply your improper chastisement of jump-start's statement when you were in the fact in the wrong. He said what he meant and it made total sense to somebody that understands bonding and grounding while it apparently flew over the head of a person that apparently does not grasp the concepts. You were attempting to correct him when his statement was entirely correct as stated.


Clearly you do not understand the difference between bonding and grounding. May I suggest you educate yourself on the subject?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Clearly you do not understand the difference between bonding and grounding. May I suggest you educate yourself on the subject?


sorry bob but the fact is, in this thread, you have shown an ignorance of the subject. I'll continue to attempt to educate you but realize I can only cure ignorance. If one is incapable of being cured of ignorance, well, you are on your own.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> sorry bob but the fact is, in this thread, you have shown an ignorance of the subject. I'll continue to attempt to educate you but realize I can only cure ignorance. If one is incapable of being cured of ignorance, well, you are on your own.


Thank you but any education from you would set me up for failure in the real world.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Clearly you do not understand the difference between bonding and grounding. May I suggest you educate yourself on the subject?


Nap knows what he is talking about, period. If you don't believe him you can go onto Mike Holt and ask them to explain it. 

Look, I am going to be honest. I don't know what skill level you posses or whether you are an electrician or not but in almost every thread I see a none electrician going on for pages trying to prove electricians wrong rather than man up admitting they don't grasp the subject or know code. It doesn't help creating a hostile environment for the OP and those who are actually trying to help. Most sparkies just leave and don't look back. I had a guy harass me here for 3 months yet could not give a single code reference to back up anything he said "Nope, a (NEC) kitchen needs only one 20amp circuit" At that point I could have left but I know that will not change his inability to absorb new information. 


If you don't believe me here are posts from one electrician thread thread:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f18/diy-chatroom-registration-sucks-68984/#post1285909

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f18/diy-chatroom-registration-sucks-68984/#post1285911

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f18/diy-chatroom-registration-sucks-68984/#post1285914

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f18/diy-chatroom-registration-sucks-68984/#post1285916


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> It doesn't help creating a hostile environment for the OP and those who are actually trying to help.


It wasn't me who created the hostile environment.

I didn't think you explained it properly and I placed my 2 cents in. You promptly answered and re-explained, and that was the end of it.... until NAP showed up.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> It wasn't me who created the hostile environment.
> 
> I didn't think you explained it properly and I placed my 2 cents in. You promptly answered and re-explained, and that was the end of it.... until NAP showed up.
> 
> Get your facts straight.


the entire problem is you don't have your facts straight and were attempting to correct somebody else that did have their facts straight. You took offense to me correcting your error and away we went.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> It wasn't me who created the hostile environment.
> 
> I didn't think you explained it properly and I placed my 2 cents in. You promptly answered and re-explained, and that was the end of it.... until NAP showed up.
> 
> Get your facts straight.



And Nap is saying exactly what I was saying yet you insist he is wrong.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> And Nap is saying exactly what I was saying yet you insist he is wrong.


No.
You said:



> Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.


You have given the OP the idea that bonding is grounding (OP has already at this point made it clear the "Main water line" is indeed coming from the street) It is not. Bonding doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with ground.

Jim Port after your post in fact got it right.

Bonding ensures the same potential in each bonded device. That potential doesn't have to be zero (ground)


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> No.
> You said:
> 
> 
> ...


sorry bob but you are wrong, again. Jump-starts statement is 100% correct. Running a wire from point a to point b bonds the two points. You are the one that wanted to stir grounding into the statement when he was not speaking of grounding. 



> You have given the OP the idea that bonding is grounding (OP has already at this point made it clear the "Main water line" is indeed coming from the street) It is not. Bonding doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with ground.


no he didn't. He explained that the two points need to be bonded and nothing more. YOU bringing grounding into the conversation is the problem. YOU are the one that brought confusion to jump-starts statement.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Bonding ensures the same potential in each bonded device. That potential doesn't have to be zero (ground)


Oh and here is a perfect example of you not understanding grounding or bonding. 

Actually bonding does in fact cause there to be a zero volt difference in potential between the two points. That is exactly the point of bonding. You thinking only ground gives you a 0 difference in potential shows your lack of understanding both bonding and grounding.

So bob, take a seat. Not only are you not tossing out anything of value, you are bringing your confusion to the conversation.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> sorry bob but you are wrong, again. Jump-starts statement is 100% correct. Running a wire from point a to point b bonds the two points. You are the one that wanted to stir grounding into the statement when he was not speaking of grounding.


It is already CLEARLY understood at this point that the water line is indeed _*ground*_.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> No.
> You said:
> 
> You have given the OP the idea that bonding is grounding (OP has already at this point made it clear the "Main water line" is indeed coming from the street) It is not. Bonding doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with ground.
> ...




And if I ran a copper wire to the meter I take care of both bonding and grounding. Its that simple. I also left out the correct size intentionally so the OP could come back and give more detail and in turn so could I. So in turn the OP would never have been mislead on anything.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> It is already CLEARLY understood at this point that the water line is indeed _*ground*_.



sorry but again you prove yourself ignorant.

the water pipe is grounded. It is not in fact ground. 

but beyond that, the fact is irrelevant as jump-start was speaking of bonding two points regardless of anything that may or may not be grounded.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> Actually bonding does in fact cause there to be a zero volt difference in potential between the two points.
> .


And that is PRECISELY the point of bonding. To ensure the SAME potential exists between devices. If a 100 volt potential exists in one device and the exact same 100 volt potential exists in the other (and I'm wearing nice rubber shoes  ), I can't get zapped.

An unrealistic example of course but the point is that if both potentials are the same I can not get hurt.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> And if I ran a copper wire to the meter I take care of both bonding and grounding. Its that simple.


Agreed. But that doesn't explain bonding, does it.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

nap said:


> sorry but again you prove yourself ignorant.
> 
> the water pipe is grounded. It is not in fact ground.


Are you interested in a logical conversation... or do you just want to twist words?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> It is already CLEARLY understood at this point that the water line is indeed _*ground*_.


Nope, its not! Per NEC it has to be in the earth for 10 or more feet in order to qualify as a grounding electrode. OP never said how long. So technically you are wrong.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> And that is PRECISELY the point of bonding. To ensure the SAME potential exists between devices. If a 100 volt potential exists in one device and the exact same 100 volt potential exists in the other (and I'm wearing nice rubber shoes  ), I can't get zapped.
> 
> An unrealistic example of course but the point is that if both potentials are the same I can not get hurt.


Bob you are provi g yourself a fool. A difference of potential is the measurement of voltage between two points. Stating something has a difference of potential of 100 volts, with no reference to the second point means nothing. So, where is your 100 volt differemce of potential measured to bob? The air? Where bob, where?

Bonding any two conductors causes there to be a zero difference of potential between those two conductors. 

Current will flow only When there is a difference of potententil between two points.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Agreed. But that doesn't explain bonding, does it.


Yes it does. Code requires a jumper across the meter if the pipe on the other side is metal. So if I took a hot wire to the pipe breaker would trip. That's bonding.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Are you interested in a logical conversation... or do you just want to twist words?


I'm interested in correct knowledge being provided. At the moment that means you should excuse yourself from the conversation since you obviously do not understand the issue being discussed and continue to provide incorrect information and then attempt to defend it with more incorrect information.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> And that is PRECISELY the point of bonding. To ensure the SAME potential exists between devices. If a 100 volt potential exists in one device and the exact same 100 volt potential exists in the other (and I'm wearing nice rubber shoes  ), I can't get zapped.
> 
> An unrealistic example of course but the point is that if both potentials are the same I can not get hurt.


ANd just to make it clear; the purpose of bonding Is to make a ZERO difference in potential, not the same difference of potential. Your inclusion of the 100 volts (to some unknown point) is meaningless.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Yes it does. Code requires a jumper across the meter if the pipe on the other side is metal. So if I took a hot wire to the pipe breaker would trip. That's bonding.


No.
That's grounding.

Go back to JIM PORTS example above:



> Bonding is where everything is connected together so that there is no difference of potential between objects. Effectively making you a bird on the wire.


There is no mention of main water lines, tripping breakers... etc.
Bonding is ensuring the same potential so that if I touch those two bonded items there can be no flow of electricity through me (assuming I'm insulated from ground) because there is no flow to produce from two items of the same potential. That potential could be ground. It could be 10 volts. It could be 300 volts.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> And that is PRECISELY the point of bonding. To ensure the SAME potential exists between devices. If a 100 volt potential exists in one device and the exact same 100 volt potential exists in the other (and I'm wearing nice rubber shoes  ), I can't get zapped.
> 
> An unrealistic example of course but the point is that if both potentials are the same I can not get hurt.


Not unrealistic, I will give you a real world example but I am sure it will go over your head. 

If I lost my service neutral Id want everything in my home bonded. Lets take a water pipe in contact with the earth for 10 feet but not connected to the main disconnect ground/neutral bar. When the neutral breaks 120 volt loads will energize the ground bar above remote earth. Lets say the load is 100% imbalanced so I have 120 volts to remote earth. If I took a volts meter to my fridge and microwave I would get zero volts and not feel a thing. A light switch to washing machine nothing. Zero volts. But if I touched my toaster oven with an EGC with one hand and my kitchen faucet with the other I would get shocked. My meter would read 120 volts. Now, if I bonded my plumbing I would not get shocked, zero volts. Will current trickle into the earth? yes. Would that make everything 120 work correctly? No. Will spigots on the outside of the home shock? Yes. But will I have no potential on the inside of my home between appliances and plumbing? YES! 

Exact same reason for a UFER bond. If the neutral broke I would not want my concrete slab to be at an opposite potential. 


I could go in further. If my water line was metal and connected to the neighbors home a broken neutral would go unnoticed with a water bond. But if I was missing one my dishwasher with a #14 EGC and a copper water line will become the service neutral instead of a water bond. That small #14 will get hot, perhaps start a fire. 

Both reasons why we bond and earthing just makes it worse in theory. 


If you ever go to the theater of electricity at Boston's science museum they have an exhibit where a guy goes into a cage and the cage is hit with lightening bolts. The man inside is never struck or feels a thing. That's bonding. He isn't being protected because the cage is driven to ground. The faraday effect keeps him safe.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> No.
> That's grounding.
> 
> Go back to JIM PORTS example above:
> ...


 
If my my metal rebar slab was bonded I would even need to be insulated!


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> No.
> That's grounding.
> 
> Go back to JIM PORTS example above:
> ...


Bob you are wrong again. your consideration of earth ground is wrong as well as you tossing out some stupid statement of some point having a 300 volt difference of potential. Again, without a second point of reference it is meaningjess and regardless of what difference of potential there is between it and some other point, unless I am in contact with a point that has a difference of potential when referenced to you conductor I will not get shocked. 


You might want to read up on a floating delta service. It might help you understand where you are so wrong in your understanding of electricity.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Not unrealistic, I will give you a real world example but I am sure it will go over your head.
> 
> If I lost my service neutral Id want everything in my home bonded. Lets take a water pipe in contact with the earth for 10 feet but not connected to the main disconnect ground/neutral bar. When the neutral breaks 120 volt loads will energize the ground bar above remote earth. Lets say the load is 100% imbalanced so I have 120 volts to remote earth. If I took a volts meter to my fridge and microwave I would get zero volts and not feel a thing. A light switch to washing machine nothing. Zero volts. But if I touched my toaster oven with an EGC with one hand and my kitchen faucet with the other I would get shocked. My meter would read 120 volts. Now, if I bonded my plumbing I would not get shocked, zero volts. Will current trickle into the earth? yes. Would that make everything 120 work correctly? No. Will spigots on the outside of the home shock? Yes. But will I have no potential on the inside of my home between appliances and plumbing? YES!
> 
> ...


And I completely agree with everything you have stated there. But the instant you bond to a city water main it also acts as ground.

Meanwhile bonding itself doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with ground. We think of it as one and the same because we always bond our panels to ground (0 potential... or as close as one can get)

Bonding is a method of creating the same potential across devices so that there is no difference in potential to flow through us when we touch both of them.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> And I completely agree with everything you have stated there. *But the instant you bond to a city water main it also acts as ground*.
> 
> Meanwhile bonding itself doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with ground. We think of it as one and the same because we always bond our panels to ground (0 potential... or as close as one can get)
> 
> Bonding is a method of creating the same potential across devices so that there is no difference in potential to flow through us when we touch both of them.


 
If its over 10 feet yes, and I said that. 

At this point I think you are arguing with me only because I am defending Nap. I am willing to bet if Jim Port said Nap was right all of a sudden you will be spinning his bird on the wire analogy as incorrect.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob you are wrong again. Your understanding of how the earth bond is involved is wrong. your statement of "or as close as we can get" shows, again, you have no understanding of why we do have a zero volt reference ( not as close as we can get but an actual zero volt reference). 


While you, obviously not understanding the topic, may think of bonding and grounding as one and the same, I can assure you that anybody that actuslly has any true understanding of the topic does not


And we don't always ground our panels. Check out that floating delta I mentioned earlier. In fact, in the case of a floating delta, any leg of the service going to ground is a bad thing.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> If its over 10 feet yes, and I said that.
> 
> At this point I think you are arguing with me only because I am defending Nap. I am willing to bet if Jim Port said Nap was right all of a sudden you will be spinning his bird on the wire analogy as incorrect.


A city water main is over 10 feet.

Nap has nothing to do with this. If you notice, I have stopped responding to him in this thread.

As for Jim Port. He is not wrong. He's got it bang on. Best explanation I have heard yet.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> A city water main is over 10 feet.
> 
> Nap has nothing to do with this. If you notice, I have stopped responding to him in this thread.
> 
> As for Jim Port. He is not wrong. He's got it bang on. Best explanation I have heard yet.


Really? 100% of the time? Please educate me...


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> A city water main is over 10 feet.
> 
> Nap has nothing to do with this. If you notice, I have stopped responding to him in this thread.
> 
> As for Jim Port. He is not wrong. He's got it bang on. Best explanation I have heard yet.


I have a plastic water main but converts to metal in the house. Is it a grounding electrode bob?


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Really? 100% of the time? Please educate me...


Are you trying to say that you know of a city water main that is shorter than 10 feet?


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Really? 100% of the time? Please educate me...


Your own words:



Jump-start said:


> What if the water line became energized?
> 
> 
> Code requires you to bond to water pipes, and if the water pipe coming in from the street metal you have the best ground rod on earth.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Are you trying to say that you know of a city water main that is shorter than 10 feet?



I do, water companies have been known to put isolation unions the their pipes. I believe Stickboy1375 explained that in a thread you were in :whistling2: 

Further some homes have valves or a water meter in the ground a few feet from the home where the supply is from the street is plastic but then converts to metal as it enters the home. 

And on top of all that the only reason why code requires a ground rod supplement a water pipe electrode is if a union gets installed or the pipe from the street goes to plastic. 






Bob Sanders said:


> Your own words:



Yup, if its continuous metal pipe from the pumping station. Of course if I had to give an exception to every statement I made my posts would crash the server.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Your own words:


So that would mean if the pipe was not metal....

Oh heck, it won't do any good to explain it to you.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

nap said:


> So that would mean if the pipe was not metal....
> 
> Oh heck, it won't do any good to explain it to you.


It doesn't matter what you say. He knows he is wrong so he is taking things out of context while looking for any weak points we may have and pick on them in an attempt to make us look wrong. This isn't an intellectual discussion, its fight to preserve egos. 

The thing is he doesn't know that I have experience and a code book on my side.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> I do, water companies have been known to put isolation unions the their pipes. I believe Stickboy1375 explained that in a thread you were in :whistling2:
> 
> Further some homes have valves or a water meter in the ground a few feet from the home where the supply is from the street is plastic but then converts to metal as it enters the home.
> 
> And on top of all that the only reason why code requires a ground rod supplement a water pipe electrode is if a union gets installed or the pipe from the street goes to plastic.


Great! One problem though. The OP already made it clear the pipe in question is metal and comes from the street.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Great! One problem though. The OP already made it clear the pipe in question is metal and comes from the street.


Yup! Its metal, but here is the thing, if I see a metal pipe coming in from the concrete does that mean its 10 feet long on the other side?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

From the 2008 NEC McGraw Hill Handbook. Read the whole thing.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Great! One problem though. The OP already made it clear the pipe in question is metal and comes from the street.[/i
> 
> 
> Bob, it is obvious you are well trained in the art of obfuscation. The point of all of this was because jumpstart was describing a bonding issue and you somehow thought he was speaking of a grounding issue. From that point on you have simply dug a deeper and deeper hole while attempting to prove you were correct (but weren't so it was an impossible task from the beginning)
> ...


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> It doesn't matter what you say. He knows he is wrong so he is taking things out of context while looking for any weak points we may have and pick on them in an attempt to make us look wrong. This isn't an intellectual discussion, its fight to preserve egos.


Who's fighting to preserve egos?

This is what the op asked:


drelldrell said:


> The main water pipe coming in off the street is copper. I have all copper piping for plumbing, there is no plex.
> 
> What is bonding? Not familiar with this term. Also not an electrician. Thanks.


(Note that the op expressly stated he has copper piping coming off the street)

Here was your response:


Jump-start said:


> Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.
> 
> The beauty is if you are grounding water pipes to code that takes care of bonding unless you have any pex between pipes.


You left the op with the idea that bonding is about grounding. It is not.

The proper term is "equipotential bonding", not zero bonding, ground bonding... etc.



> *Electrical bonding* is the practice of intentionally electrically connecting all exposed metallic items not designed to carry electricity in a room or building as protection from electric shock. If a failure of electrical insulation occurs, all bonded metal objects in the room will have substantially the same electrical potential, so that an occupant of the room cannot touch two objects with significantly different potentials.


Normally we think of bonding to zero potential (ground), but that's not necessarily what bonding is about. It's important to distinguish the difference between bonding and grounding. Although closely related... they are NOT the same thing.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Yup! Its metal, but here is the thing, if I see a metal pipe coming in from the concrete does that mean its 10 feet long on the other side?


Shall I use you words again?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Shall I use you words again?


Yes please do. :thumbsup:


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Who's fighting to preserve egos?
> 
> This is what the op asked:
> 
> ...



The OP may have said "I have copper coming off the street" and Im sure he does. He might be seeing a copper water line coming in, but is it 10 feet behind the concrete? We don't know.

In such a case I would assume so, so I would bond the incoming line for grounding and then jumper the meter to bond the house plumbing to protect against electric shock. 

I think we can agree on this.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Yes please do. :thumbsup:





> Code requires you to bond to water pipes, and if the water pipe coming in from the street metal you have the best ground rod on earth.


.....


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> The OP may have said "I have copper coming off the street" and Im sure he does. He might be seeing a copper water line coming in, but is it 10 feet behind the concrete? We don't know.


He's making that assumption, I'm making that assumption, and you already did make that assumption.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> .....


Yes, in most cases. There is an exception of an isolation union exists somewhere. But again, my posts will be pages large and fall out of scope for the question being asked. 


Heck, there is even a code section (250.6) that can override half the stuff we are talking about. That right, I could technically skip all this stuff and have the AHJ call it complaint! But what good would it do to bring that up in this thread when that is not the issue or most likely scenario?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> He's making that assumption, I'm making that assumption, and you already did make that assumption.


Yahhhh, so why are you arguing with Nap? You just said Nap is correct indirectly!


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Sanders said:


> Who's fighting to preserve egos?
> 
> This is what the op asked:
> 
> ...


Again you prove yourself lacking in knowledge. your statement of "bonding to zero potential (ground)" is as ignorant as one can get. Bonding from ANY point to ANY point creates a ZERO potential between those two points. It has nothing to do with ground. We bond to earth ground to create a zero volt reference point between the neutral (which is a hot leg of a transformer) to ground. Then for the safety factor we bond ALL listed conductors (per the code) to that same point. This provides for a ZERO volt difference of potential between any of the connected systems.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> Yahhhh, so why are you arguing with Nap? You just said Nap is correct indirectly!


It was never an argument with nap. Nap's a sideshow all on his own. The argument is with you.

The OP made it clear he was under the assumption the main water line was acting as ground. In the same post he asked what bonding was. You told him it was about running a wire to the (grounded) water line, not making it clear that grounding and bonding were two different things.



drelldrell said:


> The main water pipe coming in off the street is copper. I have all copper piping for plumbing, there is no plex.
> 
> What is bonding? Not familiar with this term. Also not an electrician. Thanks.





Jump-start said:


> Bonding is 10,000 times more important than grounding. It simply means running the appropriate sized wire from your water line to the main disconnects ground neutral buss bar, that is most likely your main panel here.
> 
> The beauty is if you are grounding water pipes to code that takes care of bonding unless you have any pex between pipes.


Jim Port's analogy (bird on a wire) makes it very clear. A bird is standing on a 25000 volt line yet (in theory) is perfectly safe because everything around him is at the same potential... 25000 volts (not necessarily ground)


----------



## busman (Nov 7, 2008)

Bob Sanders said:


> Jim Port's analogy (bird on a wire) makes it very clear. A bird is standing on a 25000 volt line yet (in theory) is perfectly safe because everything around him is at the same potential... 25000 volts (not necessarily ground)


Not arguing, but to help make this clear for those who haven't studied electrical theory. Saying a line is at 25,000 volts is meaningless. A voltage should only be specified between TWO reference points. It's correct to say that the voltage difference between the ground and the line is 25 kV. That gives it a reference.

Shocks happen to humans when we touch two points at different voltages (potential is just another term for voltage). Bonding of things together reduces (does not eliminate) the level of a shock. This is because the bond does have finite resistance and therefore, there is finite voltage differences even in a bonded system. This is rarely an issue, except in power transmissions systems where people have been shocked, even with (what was supposed to be) an equipotential bonding system installed.

As far as grounding, we bond things to ground because of gravity. Whether we like it or not, almost everything we are likely to come in contact with is in some way connected to the earth, including ourselves. Rotary wing aircraft are the exception. Anyway, for this reason, it make general sense to bond everything to the earth, since a human is very likely touching the earth, directly or indirectly, when they touch other things at the same time.

Mark


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> It was never an argument with nap. Nap's a sideshow all on his own. The argument is with you.
> 
> The OP made it clear he was under the assumption the main water line was acting as ground. In the same post he asked what bonding was. You told him it was about running a wire to the (grounded) water line, not making it clear that grounding and bonding were two different things.


Nope. I said this:

http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/house-panel-not-grounded-water-pipe-246929/#post1807625

To which you asked and I clarified:

http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/house-panel-not-grounded-water-pipe-246929/index2/#post1812897



> Its actually both. Grounding takes place if the pipe is in contact with the earth for a certain amount of feet, bonding is also taking because the water pipes will remain at the same potential as the panel's ground bar as with everything else connected to it. If I took a hot conductor to the pipe it will trip the breaker, and that's the result of bonding rather than grounding. In theory both are happening simultaneously.
> 
> You are correct though, bonding is to make 2 or more objects at the same potential. And if I connect two bonded object to say a ground rod they are grounded in addition to bonded.





> The beauty is if you are grounding water pipes to code that takes care of bonding unless you have any pex between pipes





> Jim Port's analogy (bird on a wire) makes it very clear. A bird is standing on a 25000 volt line yet (in theory) is perfectly safe because everything around him is at the same potential... 25000 volts (not necessarily ground)


So I described it a different way because Jim Port already used the analogy. Oh well.

Look, I think you are the one that doesn't fully grasp this and are looking for a weak point. I have used these terms over and over on Mike Holt and ET and no one has had an issue with them.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> To which you asked and I clarified:


 Exactly. You clarified. And if you check the posts a while back, that's exactly what I said. Post #38



Bob Sanders said:


> It wasn't me who created the hostile environment.
> 
> I didn't think you explained it properly and I placed my 2 cents in. You promptly answered and re-explained, and that was the end of it.... until NAP showed up.


But then the nap sideshow started and for what ever reason you decided to jump on it.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> Exactly. You clarified. And if you check the posts a while back, that's exactly what I said. Post #38
> 
> 
> 
> But then the nap sideshow started and for what ever reason you decided to jump on it.



And that is the real issue at hand. You had to start correcting Nap and then ridiculing him on a public forum in front of everyone so yahhh, I am kind of obliged to defend him. What moral character would I have to let him be eaten up?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Except bob wasn't correcting me. Bob was and still is from what I see wrong so his "corrections" weren't actually corrections.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

Jump-start said:


> And that is the real issue at hand. You had to start correcting Nap and then ridiculing him on a public forum in front of everyone so yahhh, I am kind of obliged to defend him. What moral character would I have to let him be eaten up?


You have that slightly wrong and the posts are there to prove it. Nap is the one who started (wrongfully) correcting me on what I thought was a closed issue. You clarified your stance and that was the end of it.... or so I thought. Then as I say, the nap sideshow started. LOL... and of course it still goes on in the back ground... kind of like elevator music.

At any rate... one of has to be adult enough to end this.....


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I'll let it be you bob since the fact is i only dealt with your statements was because you were attempting to correct jump-start but again, you can't make corrections unless you are correct, which you werent.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Bob Sanders said:


> You have that slightly wrong and the posts are there to prove it. Nap is the one who started (wrongfully) correcting me on what I thought was a closed issue. You clarified your stance and that was the end of it.... or so I thought. Then as I say, the nap sideshow started. LOL... and of course it still goes on in the back ground... kind of like elevator music.
> 
> At any rate... one of has to be adult enough to end this.....


Yes, and I think you owe Nap an apology.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

I had the work done with conduit run out the back of the house, around to the front side, then back into the front. It was terminated at the incoming water supply pipe coming into the house roughly 18" above its entry point. Even though there is a water meter jumper in place, the electrician stated it was not needed due to how the water meter is designed. 

As you can partially see from the attached picture, the water meter is installed with essentially a 8 to 10" copper pipe "spliced" in just after the water pipe. So there is a solid copper connection between the incoming water supply pipe and the water piping continuing to the house. The 8 to 10" copper pipe has copper piping coming out of the left and right sides to connect the water meter. Again, the jumper was left in place. 

A "j-tag" was installed as well by the electrician. The conduit is rather ugly on the side of the house with the shiny silver color. I plan to paint it this summer. 

Thanks for all the help. I see the thread stirred a number of comments. Really appreciate Jump-start and Naps advice.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I have never seen a water meter that didn't have to be jumped regardless of the design. The reason is; if remove the meter there is s gap inthe pipe where it was which means no continuity. H


Does yours somehow stay connected? If so, can you get a clearer picture. Of yours to see how it works?


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

I see your point. Will get pics posted later today.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know the size of the wire to the water line? How many amps is you service?


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

Jump-start said:


> Out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know the size of the wire to the water line? How many amps is you service?


100 amp service. I incorrectly stated 200 in an earlier post. 6 gauge wire was used for grounding to the water meter. There is a grounding pole near the electrical meter that appears to have a 4 gauge wire. Not sure - it was there when I bough the house.


----------



## busman (Nov 7, 2008)

If I'm correct in what I'm seeing in the photo, I'm not impressed with your "electrician". It appears that he bent that conduit with his knee. Also, if using metallic conduit for a GEC, it needs to be bonded at both ends.

Mark


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

busman said:


> If I'm correct in what I'm seeing in the photo, I'm not impressed with your "electrician". It appears that he bent that conduit with his knee. Also, if using metallic conduit for a GEC, it needs to be bonded at both ends.
> 
> Mark


It's never worth using a metallic raceway with a GEC in my opinion, because of the extra bonding.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

drelldrell said:


> 100 amp service. I incorrectly stated 200 in an earlier post. 6 gauge wire was used for grounding to the water meter. There is a grounding pole near the electrical meter that appears to have a 4 gauge wire. Not sure - it was there when I bough the house.


6 gauge is good. Per code an 8 gauge wire is ok for a water bond regarding a 100 amp service. Ground rods need be no bigger than 6 gauge copper. I will post the chart that determines water bond sizing. 






stickboy1375 said:


> It's never worth using a metallic raceway with a GEC in my opinion, because of the extra bonding.


Good point, that leads me ask how (if at all) that conduit is bonded at both ends. 

If that pipe is not bonded it will act like an inductor...


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

stickboy1375 said:


> It's never worth using a metallic raceway with a GEC in my opinion, because of the extra bonding.


I have been too busy to get back into the area to take more pictures. However, Chicago code requires EMT conduit and bonding of the EMT at one end. At the water pipe a connection such as the attached image is used.


----------



## busman (Nov 7, 2008)

drelldrell said:


> I have been too busy to get back into the area to take more pictures. However, Chicago code requires EMT conduit and bonding of the EMT at one end. At the water pipe a connection such as the attached image is used.


NEC requires it to be bonded at both ends.

Mark


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

busman said:


> NEC requires it to be bonded at both ends.
> 
> Mark


Hey youze guys. Ya see, this is Chicago. We don't care 'bout no stinkin' NEC. We'ze do it our wayze here in Chicago, ya got that?


I don't know how much Chicago code mirrors the NEC but it there isn't much that would suprise me. Bonding both ends may not be a Chicago code requirement.


----------



## drelldrell (May 12, 2014)

nap said:


> Hey youze guys. Ya see, this is Chicago. We don't care 'bout no stinkin' NEC. We'ze do it our wayze here in Chicago, ya got that?
> 
> I don't know how much Chicago code mirrors the NEC but it there isn't much that would suprise me. Bonding both ends may not be a Chicago code requirement.


I asked the electrician about bonding on both ends. He said only the end point (to water pipe termination) was required. I also asked him about bonding with the gas piping as well as water piping. He gas pipe bonding is not allowed per Chicago code. 

Let me first say the next statement is no me making a judgement - just presenting the statement: I asked the electrician why is Chicago code so different form NEC, and his response was Chicago code is better. 

Honestly, its confusing to me to learn the differences to be a fully as possible informed homeowner. But, I am trusting they know what they are doing.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gas pipe is considered bonded if it goes to an appliance that utilizes electricity. The egc is considered adequate to bond the gas pipe. I, personally, prefer a bond directly 


As to chicago being better? I would have to review it to make that judgment. Sometimes things are just different.


----------



## busman (Nov 7, 2008)

I don't know about the Chicago electrical code, and whether it is better or worse in general, but the rule in the the NEC 250.64(e)(1) requires bonding of both ends of ferrous conduit that encloses the GEC and for a GOOD reason. As described in the NEC Handbook, "These bonding connections are necessary so that the ferrous raceway does not create an inductive choke on the grounding electrode conductor." Bonding on one end only will do nothing to relieve the choke effect. Unless the Chicago code prohibits bonding at both ends, your electrician should have enough knowledge to know to bond both ends.

Also, we still haven't addressed the violation of 358.24, "Bends shall be made so that the tubing is not damaged and the internal diameter of the tubing is not effectively reduced." It sure looks like the diameter of the tubing decreases in that bend.

Mark


----------



## Mrnuggets (Feb 5, 2021)

md2lgyk said:


> Why do you have to run the ground all the way to the meter? Isn't there an exposed water pipe somewhere closer??
> 
> I know Chicago has some very strange electrical codes. I've never lived where the panel had to be grounded to the water pipes. If you have a ground rod (really should have two) I don't see the reason for it. What would you do if your water piping wasn't metal (like CPVC or Pex)??


Hello! licensed electrician here. The NEC (National electrical code) States that you must have a primary and secondary ground. You ALWAYS have to bond your metal water pipes to your grounding system. Not only do you have to have it bonded but it requires that the bonding happen within 6 feet of the main. In other words you cannot just tap onto a pipe somewhere in the house. This is because you have to maintain equal potential in your electrical system and you also have to protect your water. If you do not and lets say a mouse chews thru a wire that is in the wall next to a copper pipe ( Which is super duper common) and they make contact it will not trip a breaker. It will just sit there energized until it finds a path to ground i.e. you washing your hands. You are also required to have a ground rod of at least 8 feet in length driven at no more than a 45 degree angle where the top ( Bonding point) is buried at least 2 inches under finished grade. Grounding is no joke. Always remember when hiring a tradesman that skilled labor isnt cheap and cheap labor isnt skilled.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

@Mrnuggets thank you for contributing, but you are tagging onto zombie posts many years dead.


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

Sure would like to see some older threads. This one is only 6 years old.


----------

