Each individual back box must be bonded to ground. You cannot rely on rigid EMT to provide the bonding requirement for a life safety system which must be able to identify a ground fault condition to properly operate (I can cite dozens of examples where conduit connections have become separated due to building shift/settling or incorrectly installed connectors). Why is it (do you think) that fire alarm cable IN CANADA always has an odd number of conductors and why is it (do you think) that electrical inspectors will quite often check to see that a bonding conductor has been properly terminated in a device back-box? In addtion to reviewing the relevent sections of CEC, I would also like to suggest that you address your attention to CAN/ULC-S524 which references both this and the manufacturer's installation instructions. I should remind you that the CEC isn't the only reference used when verifying a fire alarm system to CAN/ULC-S537.
For your information, in an older version of CAN/ULC-S524 (-91 specifically), a table was included in Appendix "A" which was removed in subsequent editions because it referenced several items already covered in CEC. This table is being re-introduced in the "-12" version of the standard. I will publish the table (from the -91 version) when I receive permission from ULC to do so.
I have on occasion opened junction boxes to troubleshoot system connections, but when performing a fire alarm verification the electricians/contractors that normally contract me invariably will perform this function for me (as well they should). I've also replaced field devices, control components, and annunciators. I've installed and terminated new control components (on an existing fire alarm control). The forgoing will, I'm certain provide you some "grist" for the complaints you intend to file against me. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry": "Go ahead, punk. Make my day!"
I am factory trained on a number of fire alarm panels (and in the thirty or so years I've been in this profession that number represents pretty well every manufacturer you care to name) so I'm just as qualified to go "past the dead front" as any other fire alarm technician is (and, more than likely, a great deal more than most electricians). In my experience, ASTTBC "registration" doesn't necessarily mean you're any more qualified to work on a fire alarm system than CFAA "certification", an undisputed fact I've unfortunately demonstrated here on far too many occasions already (and over which you yourself have lamented at least twice to my recollection in this forum
). In my opinion, a "local sales rep" will no doubt provide you with about the same level of "knowledge" as many so-called "factory trained technicians" have demonstrated in a number of burning examples
on this site (and others). On one occasion, I'd actually been "instructed" by a "local sales rep" to ignore the way devices were installed while "verifying" them! Shoddy work (and workmanship) can also be attributed to many so-called "TQ'd electricians" (some of whom I respectfully suggest may have even involved in a good number of the fire alarm installations that I've served up as examples of exactly what NOT to do).
). I have my doubts that you will (which is a pity as I do so enjoy a good debate). Please note that I have elected NOT to edit your comments. You "found the time" to attack me personally but left it to me to provide the only proper response to Joe's question. That's disappointing too.
I welcome any constructive critique or suggestion regarding a FAQ you might think requires correction or addtional clarification (in fact, I'd appreciate an email for either of these scenarios). So far the site (as you see it) is very much an individual effort (I certainly don't have the vast resources either ASTTBC or CFAA have), but I have a really good feeling that this will change as we venture further into the New Year. The FAQ section of the website now boasts over 120 questions grouped into eighteen topics. For the last 12 years, CFAA's website listed six questions, one of which was removed because the answer was incorrect (if you want a perfect example of complacency, this is it
!). You are quite right in that I am not ASTTBC Registered, however, I do subscribe to their Code of Ethics and Conduct. I am not this industry's biggest problem (although you're probably not alone in thinking that I am). Poor practice and corporate complacency only serves to highlight the lack of proper training, oversight, discipline and technician support that's really needed. This, my friend, represents the real danger to the public. It's odd that I don't see many RFPT's stepping forward to help, and those that have (like yourself), don't want to identify themselves with (or their involvement in) an association that advocates for the higher standard (and which is at least attempting to address the very issues many are complaining about)! That's just sad.
Everyone here knows who I am, where I work, and what I do. Contacting me is as easy as dialing any of the numbers you see at the bottom of every page on this site. I've invested significant personal resources into this project, and I have a dream. I already know that I won't achieve it as a one man show, but if I can "spark" dialogue; if just one other person joins and he brings in another, well it simply won't be just "my voice" any longer, but a chorus, and eventually a choir.
When (if) you do write to Brian Stegavig at ASTTBC, I should like to advise you that anonymous, unsubstantiated complaints are "filed" through a device that renders them into small bits of material very similar in shape to what was distributed into New York's Time Square at midnight last night. Happy New Year!