"grounding conductor" a misnomer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Twodollar

Member
Location
San Jose, CA
I suppose it is more hypothetical than anything, but perhaps it could be a sadistic test question. It bugged me after I began to think about it.

What is the main purpose of the grounding conductor? To provide a conductive path to earth ground? No!

In fact, as the name would counterintuitively imply, only grounding the conductor provides no protection or worse, a false sense of protection.

The purpose of the grounding conductor is to provide a low resistance current path to a point where the grounding conductor bonds to the neutral, thus creating a circuit with high enough current to activate the circuit breaker.

Calling the EGC a "fault conductor" seems much more appropriate (and perhaps making do-it-yourselfers wary of ignoring it).

I suppose I am wondering if there is some historical significance to choosing the "grounding conductor" name. Physically grounding the EGC is not the primary need of the EGC, providing a low resistance fault path is.

This is just thinking, please don't anyone go home and unground their systems now, okay!
 
CMP5 does not understrand bonding and grounding. Almost everything we call grounding is really bonding, but they don't want to make this change because it would be too confusing and expensive.
Don
 
Don
I would not go as far as saying that CMP does not understand grounding. There are some very bright individuals on the committee and they agree with a lot of us as to the changes needed. Take a look at the ROPs and you will see that some of them have put in code proposals to change some of the Article, yet they have not passed.


I would agree that the Co$t of the changes has made the largest impact on why the changes are hard in coming about. I myself am usually a radical type and would go with the necessary changes regardless of co$t.

Yet, just think of all of the changes necessary that would have to be made to institute some of the legitimate ideas that have been discussed.

Equipment installation instructions
Textbooks
Training
All the different Code books that use the different terms that may be affected by the changes


Just these mentioned above would be daunting in the staggering amount of effort to make the changes...someone would make a lot of money. :cool:
 
While I agree with Pierre to a point, I still have to wonder that since it is so misunderstood and misapplied, we may not be doing any good anyways and maybe it is time for some radical changes.

I always thought that 250 would be an easy article to write:
250.1 Ground/Bond the following (insert list here)
250.2 Do Not Ground/Bond the following (insert list here)

Then of course since this is the NEC we would have exceptions 1 thru 100.
 
Ground is ground the earth around

Ground is ground the earth around

Grounding (bonding) grounded, grounding... It is very poorly written but it would cause more problems for everyone to have to relearn new terminology.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone would just say "The green one"? :grin:
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
I myself am usually a radical type and would go with the necessary changes regardless of co$t.
Click to expand...
I agree. After all, we have to comply regardless of "co$t".
 
I agree that the principal function of an EGC is fault clearance (bonding). However, it does ground equipment as well. To change the term to equipment bonding conductor creates the same problem, only 180 degrees the other direction.
 
I believe that I read somewhere there was talk of taking Art 250 and making 2 Articles out of it.
1. Grounding & 2. Bonding...maybe, and I mean maybe, it would not be a bad idea to look into the feasibility of going in that direction.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Yet, just think of all of the changes necessary that would have to be made to institute some of the legitimate ideas that have been discussed.

Equipment installation instructions
Textbooks
Training
All the different Code books that use the different terms that may be affected by the changes


Just these mentioned above would be daunting in the staggering amount of effort to make the changes...someone would make a lot of money. :cool:
Click to expand...
Every three years, most textbooks are revised to accomdate changes in the NEC. Why would this be any different?

Ryan said:
I agree that the principal function of an EGC is fault clearance (bonding). However, it does ground equipment as well. To change the term to equipment bonding conductor creates the same problem, only 180 degrees the other direction.
Click to expand...
Given that the benefit we receive from the EGC is largely from the bonding function it performs, downplaying the role that grounding performs seems appropriate to me.

Do we commonly refer to a panelboard as an enclosure? A raceway?

Do we commonly refer to a fluorescent light as an enclosure? A raceway?

The primary function of an object is usually the namesake. The reason we installed the object is to cast light; we're using it's other attributes for other purposes, such as use as a raceway, or what have you.

I will join the chorus in the next code cycle, calling for a change from EGC to EBC to enhance the understanding of the roles played. :)
 
To change the term to equipment bonding conductor creates the same problem, only 180 degrees the other direction.
Click to expand...

Ryan, I like your style, but I see it a bit differently. In the old days, when a dial up telephone was considered high tech, it took forever to correct things. Today we have high speed computers that move at the unbelievable speeds.

We have also proven (as far as we are able to theoricatally) the correct approach to understanding bonding vs grounding. I think we'd be wise to move to corrections in the NEC, training, and all new printed formatts. Why teach anything that can be misconstrued deliberately, when we have a much clearer path to take? Yes it will be expensive, but just like maintenace, the untold costs, and savings, cannot be fully appreciated, till we whip into shape. Just another anlge to consider.
 
ryan_618 said:
I agree that the principal function of an EGC is fault clearance (bonding). However, it does ground equipment as well. To change the term to equipment bonding conductor creates the same problem, only 180 degrees the other direction.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here and personally think that as long as 250.4(A)(2) remains worded as it is worded today the purpose of the EGC is to connect the metal parts of an electrical system to earth.
 
What triggered my thinking about the purpose of the "electrical grounding conductor" name is the relatively insignificant fact that the electrical grounding conductor is actually referenced to earth ground.

A floating neutral system could build up charge on it like a van degraff generator (oh fun!) but grounding neutral alone would stop charge buildup, no need for a separate ground wire to do this.

You cannot use the argument the need for the conductor being grounded for lightning protection because the neutral is at nearly earth ground potential already. Lightning would go to neutral as often as ground (unless we are now encasing all conductors in grounded metallic conduit)

Therefore I would argue the best name is a "fault conductor" or "bonding conductor" that just so happens to be referenced to ground for other very tangential reasons.
 
Twodollar said:
You cannot use the argument the need for the conductor being grounded for lightning protection because the neutral is at nearly earth ground potential already. Lightning would go to neutral as often as ground (unless we are now encasing all conductors in grounded metallic conduit)
Click to expand...

Yes, but we don't connect our metal equipment to the nuetral, do we? (I mean, other than at the service or SDS, of course).
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Mike
What about 250.4(A)(3) - 250.4(A)(5)?
Click to expand...

I wish that they in some way changed what is said in (A)(2) but they don't.
As long as (A)(2) stays in place it is going to be hard to change the name of the conductor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top