Grounded Conductor/Neutral

[iwire]

Bob, this is what C57.80 says:

I did not write what I quoted, you wanted reasons why the NEC made the decision, I gave you the best source for that question, panel statements from those that made the decisions.

Truthfully I don't care if the NEC tells me up is down, It is my job to follow the NEC and sure if I thought the NEC had a rule that was dangerous I might put a proposal to have that rule changed.

But there is nothing dangerous about the 2008s definition of neutral conductor and I have absolutely no desire to battle about something that means nothing to me one way or another.

It is obvious from reading this and your other recent posts your itching for a fight from someone, I am not getting sucked into it. :smile:

 

[weressl]

I did not write what I quoted, you wanted reasons why the NEC made the decision, I gave you the best source for that question, panel statements from those that made the decisions.

Truthfully I don't care if the NEC tells me up is down, It is my job to follow the NEC and sure if I thought the NEC had a rule that was dangerous I might put a proposal to have that rule changed.

But there is nothing dangerous about the 2008s definition of neutral conductor and I have absolutely no desire to battle about something that means nothing to me one way or another.

It is obvious from reading this and your other recent posts your itching for a fight from someone, I am not getting sucked into it. :smile:

Not at all, I am just looking for:

1. Consistency,
2. Logic,
3. Comprehension.

There is inherent problem with fuzzy definitions. Meaning that the definition is unclear and subject to interpretation.

It seems to me that although the NEC states to follow the IEC/C57.80 definition lead, it slightly deviates from it. The C57.80 also refers to do distinctly different things when defines the term. (As Spock would say: it is not logical.)

Don't mind me....:-?