Grounding>Earthing new forum title

[weressl]

if europe jumped off the empire state building would you

First lets get them jump... then I will see

 

[weressl]

I agree with Don 100% and I agree with his proposal to change EGC to EBC.
There were a number of good changes in Art 250 for 08. Lets watch what happens in 11. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity to all make a comment on a proposal.

Anyway in the future I will use earthing when its grounding.

I prefer dirt, as in dirting.

I think the 'grounding' that refers to the connection of equipment or system to ground or '0' potential is sufficient differentiation from bonding, that refers to the connection of two conductive elements that may be current carying as function or accidentaly by fault.

 

[electricmanscott]

I'd say any title is better than Grounding versus bonding. That doesn't even make sense used a a forum area title.

 

[chris kennedy]

I'd say any title is better than Grounding versus bonding. That doesn't even make sense used a a forum area title.

Its better than "Lightning and Power Quality".

 

[wbalsam1]

"Grounding" versus "Bonding" makes it seem like a competition, i.e., "Black" vs. "White" for contrast.
I don't think "versus" is an accurate way to frame these two terms.
"Pears" versus "Apples".......:-?:smile:

 

[ryan_618]

I have never liked the term "versus" in this context. I do like, however, the approach that was taken in the 2008 cycle by refering to "connection to the equipment grounding conductor". That seems to take out the argument of what the conductor is doing, it simply makes it a mechanical function.

for example, should switches be "grounded" or "bonded"? Answer: They should be connected to an EGC.

 

[dbuckley]

Speaking as an outsider, I think the real confusion occurs because of the terms "grounded" and "grounded conductor" which mean two totally different things. Earth wire vs ground wire, yeah, tor-mate-oh, tor-mart-oh, but "grounded conductor" vs neutral - madness.

Time for the grounded conductor to go.

 

[electricmanscott]

"Grounding" versus "Bonding" makes it seem like a competition, i.e., "Black" vs. "White" for contrast.
I don't think "versus" is an accurate way to frame these two terms.
"Pears" versus "Apples".......:-?:smile:

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[frizbeedog]

if europe jumped off the empire state building would you

If you jumped off the Empire State Building you would be earthing......rapidly.

 

[wbalsam1]

Electricmanscott: I have a few more "ditties" to add to your list:

Was it something I said? :grin:
It's tamper Resistant not tamper proof
It's undercabinet light not undercounter light
It's tract home not track home

"You're" is used differently than "Your"
"Where" is used differently than "Were"

 

[electricmanscott]

Electricmanscott: I have a few more "ditties" to add to your list:

Was it something I said? :grin:
It's tamper Resistant not tamper proof
It's undercabinet light not undercounter light
It's tract home not track home

"You're" is used differently than "Your"
"Where" is used differently than "Were"

I'm sure there are many we could add. I just nitpicked a few that we in the trade should be able to properly pronounce and spell. No secret that I am not a literary genius, we all make mistakes and spelling errors. But it's better when it is someone else. :grin:

 

[weressl]

I'd say any title is better than Grounding versus bonding. That doesn't even make sense used a a forum area title.

I think that the intent may have been to highlight the difference, which was the contention in the argument that changed the Code. Since that was done, and the argument is over, the community may have been better served by 'Grounding and bonding' indicating two closely related and intertwined, but separate requirements. We usually group static electricity and physical lightning protection within the same subject. Surge protection and lightning arrestors are a separate subject and belong to power quality.

 

[Rockyd]

I like Grounding vs Bonding -

Reflects well on the man who makes this forum possible!

 

[wbalsam1]

I like Grounding vs Bonding -

Reflects well on the man who makes this forum possible!

Please explain how the requirements for "grounding" contrast with the requirements for "bonding".

 

[George Stolz]

Please explain how the requirements for "grounding" contrast with the requirements for "bonding".

That's the problem - they're similar, but for totally different ends. Two people can be talking about entirely different principles, and believe the other understands what they're saying when the second party really doesn't get it.

 

[peter d]

That's the problem - they're similar, but for totally different ends. Two people can be talking about entirely different principles, and believe the other understands what they're saying when the second party really doesn't get it.

Which comes full circle to proper education about what ground and bonding are and what they are both supposed to accomplish.

 

[LarryFine]

Please explain how the requirements for "grounding" contrast with the requirements for "bonding".

Simply speaking, grounding is about connecting parts to the earth, while bonding is about connecting parts to each other.

Think 'zero potential' versus 'equi-potential.'

 

[George Stolz]

Think 'zero potential' versus 'equi-potential.'

We really don't want to go down the 'zero potential' road, do we?

 

[Rockyd]

#34 Yesterday, 08:49 PM
wbalsam1
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jay, NY
Posts: 1,452



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain how the requirements for "grounding" contrast with the requirements for "bonding".

Read 250.4(A) All of it.

 

[George Stolz]

I think what Fred's getting at is, how are the requirements exclusive of each other? If everything is bonded, then those items are all going to be incidentally connected to earth as well...