Grounding,Bonding,Neutral,Grounding Electrode Where does it end.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bryanret

Member
Location
Ark
First I want to say "Thank You", to all of you for your help in the industry. From the questions to the answers they all help in improving and raising the bar in our field of work.
On to my first question. Could there be sometime in the future a group of people that could set down and simplify the notouries section 250.
1. Get rid of the term Neutral.
2. "Grounding Conductor" should only apply to conductors leading to electrodes. Ground = Dirt,earth.
3. "Grounded" should be used on any conductor that is purposely bonded. On any system type. No wishy washy neutral here grounded here. Just Grounded.
4. "Bonding Conductor" in place of .....equipment grounding conduct. Your not grounding it to dirt your bonding it to the metal parts.
I'm not saying these are good suggestions just trying to help in lowering the confusion level. I have been in more arguments over that one section then any other. Sec. to temp limitations on devices and conductors.
 
I feel the cause for the misunderstandings of these terms is due to the lack of education. For the most part, most Journeyman once receiving their license seem to think that they have learned what is needed to be successful in our industry. However, the learning curve for most Journeyman has just begun at that point. Without classroom instruction, theory, practical and code, how can we be successful in an ever changing industry. In my code update class last year it was announced at that time that Art. 250, probably the most abused and misunderstood art. in the NEC would be going through some major changes, including the terms grounding and bonding. Even with the clarifications and changes it is up to those in the industry to understand what each are with their relationship to each other.
 
I have been in trade many years taken grounding courses studied it in college and still get confused with the wording. I believe one of the reasons is I do the job right and put the wires in the correct areas but never really discuss it with other professionals, who actually hold you accountable for proper usage. Thank You for that.
 
Why not get rid of the term grounded conductor and just call it a neutral. Call the ground wire a grounding conductor and any bonding ones bonding. That would seem much more straight forward to me.
 
Why not get rid of the term grounded conductor and just call it a neutral.
Click to expand...
Not all grounded conductors are neutrals.
Call the ground wire a grounding conductor and any bonding ones bonding.
Click to expand...
What is bonding and what is grounding? It is my opinion that most of what the code calls grounding is really bonding.
Don
 
You need your shorts to travel the quickest, least resistance, path back to the source ? the XO of the service XFMR. If your system includes this when you have a short it will immediately raise the current usage and open it?s breaker, the lowest resistance path = an effective ground fault path using the lowest impedance, infinite if possible! This may be an equipment grounding conductor (excellent route), or the conduit, or the frame of the building, or another conduit, but these all efficiently route back to the source for one purpose: to be an effective ground fault path to source that will immediately raise current and instantaneously open the source breaker. This is why all circuitry equipment grounding conductors and neutrals common to the serving grounded conductor at the service disconnect, this grounded conductor has a duel purpose in that it is the return for the unbalance load and it is the effective ground fault path to the source which is the XO on the service transformer.
 
wireman71 said:
Why not get rid of the term grounded conductor and just call it a neutral. Call the ground wire a grounding conductor and any bonding ones bonding. That would seem much more straight forward to me.
Click to expand...

I say we just call them "white" and "green". :grin:
 
tryinghard said:
to be an effective ground fault path to source that will immediately raise current and instantaneously open the source breaker.
Click to expand...

The question in my mind is why do we call it an effective ground fault path?

The 'ground' has nothing to do with opening the source over current device..

It should be called 'an effective fault path' or maybe 'effective bond fault path to source.

I agree with Don, almost all the times the NEC says 'ground' they are actually talking about bonding.

Very few conductors under the NEC have anything to do with the 'dirt'.
 
I agree using the term bond would simplify the discussion, rather that utilizing one word differnetly.

You ground to earth or somebody serving in place of earth.
You bond everything, Equipment Bonding Conductor for an effective fault path.
The neutral and or grounded conductor should be called????
 
brian john said:
I agree using the term bond would simplify the discussion, rather that utilizing one word differnetly.

You ground to earth or somebody serving in place of earth.
You bond everything, Equipment Bonding Conductor for an effective fault path.
The neutral and or grounded conductor should be called????
Click to expand...

I've always thought the British (and other English speaking locales as well?) use of the term "earth" in this regard was almost quaint, but it does a great deal to disambiguate. If we were to adopt "earth" in this fashion and "bond" or "bonding" respectively, there would be no need to change "grounded" at all.

HOs and associates at orange stores would still be hopelessly lost though...
 
iwire said:
The question in my mind is why do we call it an effective ground fault path?
Click to expand...
Like many other NEC terms, it is a holdover from long ago.

In the engineering world we speak of two types of faults. One is a fault from one or more phases to each other. The other is a fault from one or more phases to "ground." But in this context, the word "ground" means planet Earth, or any surface in electrical contact with dirt. So the phrase "ground fault" is intended to include a fault from a phase conductor to the external case of an electrical component. From that point, the current flowing back to the source (via the EGC) is "ground fault current."

 
charlie b said:
Like many other NEC terms, it is a holdover from long ago.
Click to expand...

Charlie, that was a rhetorical question. :grin:

I 'know' why, I just think it's time to give up the quaint old time terms that do not really mean what they sound like they mean. :cool:
 
neutral

neutral

wwhitney said:
Could you elaborate? Thanks, Wayne
Click to expand...

Wayne, Consider a corner grounded 480 volt (or 240 volt) delta system as an expample. The "grounded" conductor is a phase conductor...carrying all current used on that phase, not just unbalanced current as a neutral does.
 
wwhitney said:
Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

In many voltage systems the grounded conductor is also the neutral.

However if you had a corner ground delta system the grounded conductor is not a neutral.

Also, if you want to get down to it the grounded conductor in a simple 2 wire branch circuit is not a 'neutral' as it always carrys the same current as the ungrounded conductor.

For example a 120 volt microwave cord has one ungrounded, one grounded and one grounding conductor, there is really no neutral conductor in that circuit.

On the other hand the circuit supplying a range has two ungrounded, one grounding and one grounded / neutral conductor.
 
iwire said:
Very few conductors under the NEC have anything to do with the 'dirt'.
Click to expand...
Good point! Maybe we should use the term for cables and conductors with a "U" in the type designation. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top