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

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
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'.
Click to expand...
I agree, maybe the terminology can be:
Return Conductor (grounded conductor/neutral)
Bonding (equipment grounding conductor)
Frame Bonding (separately derived systems)
and Earthing (electrode & it?s conductor)

We?ll have to rename GFI & GFCI?s ? BFI & BFCI?s or circuit trip unit?:)

I don?t have my ?05? book at home but I do have my ?02?, have you ever noticed 250-26?

Mike Holt has a good definition of a true neutral conductor in: Understanding the National Electrical Code, 2nd edition, based on ?96?, ?For a ?grounded conductor? to be a true ?neutral?, there must be an equal potential between the grounded conductor and all phases of the system?, This is like 1PH 3W of 3PH 4W wye not delta.

The neutral conductor really is grounded at the source but it does not require the ground to function safely with a fault, unless the serving grounded conductor is broken wow how remote could that be? Broken grounded conductor happens then a fault happens?

I think because the neutral conductor commons with ground at the source it will always be referred to as the grounded conductor especially with future old timers (like those who transition through this inevitable change) and utility linemen. Sure would be nice to clean up the terminology though.
 
What if!

What if!

What if we agree on the. The only point at a service to be bonded is at the xfmer. XO. This could bring the Grounded/NEUTRAL to being used to only one purpose. I know this would mean one more conductor in service drops and a little bit re-thinking, but it would also get rid of multiple bonding like in a case of multiple meters and disconnects on one buildings. We seem to fallow this way of thinking on our in house xfmers. We bond at the xfmer not at the panel that is feed from that xfmer. So in our main service why can we fall suit. Bond at the service pole mount or pade mount. And size the bonding conductor for the largest single or parallel Neutral/Grounded drop. So if any new drops made from that service pole or pulled from that pad mount well be already bonded. Just one more conductor away from having a single point bond on service drops and service laterals.
 
Dualing Neutral/Grounded conductor usage!

Dualing Neutral/Grounded conductor usage!

Majority of the time we bond on a separately derived system at the source. The option of bonding at the source or the first disconnecting means could lead to the problem of dual usage of the neutral/grounded conductor. Meter sockets and there neutral/grounded conductor bar are mounted directly to the enclosure. The utility's supply two ungrounded and one grounded/neutral conductor. This limits and forces the neutral/grounded conductor into its dual usage condition. We "Electricians" bond at generators and transformers the source. We bring out from the "GEN./XFMERS" a Grounded/Neutral and a Bonding/Grounding conductor. Thus creating for each, "ONE USAGE". Utility company's seam to have a different view on this subject. One practice is used by electricians one practice is used by the POCO. Not sure on how to resolve this issue. Could it really be that difficult to install one more wire. One usage one purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top