I don't recommend using it at this point in time:
I don't recommend using it at this point in time:
Great article Nick!
Why not? Perhaps we should add another paragraph to the code to allow for another resi-jerry-rig! Clamping a cable to a rebar is nothing but a foolish, short-lived, insecure, quickly corroding and poorly conducting assembly, as can be seen from a distance by even the uninitiated.
Too bad no one can trust some kid, paid barely more than minimum wage, that wires houses, to successfully perform an exothermic weld!
Maybe I should get some Mexican or Chinaman to cadweld 8' groundrods and chunks of rebar to 3 meter tails and sell them as grounding electrode assemblies in this country! Now THAT's how we do 'lectric work in the 21st century in this great land!!!
The "rebar sticking out method" seems to violate some basic tenets of the electrical code. Take 300.6, for example. Now I understand that 300.6 would apply to wiring methods, and that there is some leeway within 300.6. But the rebar is not a wiring method. It is (kind of) a conductor. OK - then let us go over and take a look at 110.11, 250.28(A), 250.52(5), etc., etc. It seems like this language was somewhat haphazardly written into the NEC without a thorough and complete understanding of what actually takes place on constructions sites. Merely stating to use a "coating" for this rebar extension isn't the correct answer. It is obvious that more input is needed on the code panels, specifically - from inspectors that are out on the job every day.
This is also what happens when some try to write a code violation into the NEC, IMHO. It results in a mess of a code article.
The "rebar sticking out method" seems to violate some basic tenets of the electrical code. Take 300.6, for example. Now I understand that 300.6 would apply to wiring methods, and that there is some leeway within 300.6. But the rebar is not a wiring method. It is (kind of) a conductor. OK - then let us go over and take a look at 110.11, 250.28(A), 250.52(5), etc., etc. It seems like this language was somewhat haphazardly written into the NEC without a thorough and complete understanding of what actually takes place on constructions sites. Merely stating to use a "coating" for this rebar extension isn't the correct answer. It is obvious that more input is needed on the code panels, specifically - from inspectors that are out on the job every day.
This is also what happens when some try to write a code violation into the NEC, IMHO. It results in a mess of a code article.