Meter has rigid conduit to disconnect

[DrSparks]

It was probably the best explanation of his confusion. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I remember being confused about this when it came up in the apprenticeship along with most of the class. There were many bright people in our class that would point out things like the use of 'ground' in 'ground fault' when the ground isn't even needed for the ground fault protection device to work.

For some reason, the NEC, and the trades, refuse to address the inconsistencies that occur from today's use of the term 'ground'. I wish I knew why.

I'm not confused about anyting. I have a deep understanding of electrical engineering. Do people still just can't seem to understand what I'm trying to say. All I'm trying to say is that the term ground is used to mean many different things in the trade including in the electrical engineering field. Why is that so hard to understand

Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk

 

[George Stolz]

All I'm trying to say is that the term ground is used to mean many different things in the trade including in the electrical engineering field.

All we're trying to say is that disseminating incorrect information about grounding and bonding as it is given in the NEC on an NEC forum (with an entire sub forum dedicated to the topic) is going to win you no converts, whether 8 out of 10 EEs have it wrong as well or not. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[user 100]

Then why did you post a bunch of nonsense from wiki and state you thought it was the best explanation?
Roger

Okay perhaps Wikipedia was a bad source. The reason why I chose that article is because the author mentions that the term ground is often used to mean many different things. I wasn't aware that the article was claiming that a ground wire needs a physical connection to Earth ground to facilitate the operation of an ocpd. I will be more careful about what I post from now on

Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the difference between grounding and bonding, and that you were only trying to illustrate the differing definitions of "ground"........

But, here, in the context of electrocution prevention, from a strict code perspective, simply referring someone to the NEC's sec 250.4(3)(4)&(5) does the job.

You may have caught a little flack, but understand that this forum is very dedicated to getting people away from the gobbledygook that has persisted about saving lives by tying electrical equipment to dirt.

Oh and welcome back-

 

[DrSparks]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the difference between grounding and bonding, and that you were only trying to illustrate the differing definitions of "ground"........

But, here, in the context of electrocution prevention, from a strict code perspective, simply referring someone to the NEC's sec 250.4(3)(4)&(5) does the job.

You may have caught a little flack, but understand that this forum is very dedicated to getting people away from the gobbledygook that has persisted about saving lives by tying electrical equipment to dirt.

Oh and welcome back-

Thanks! I understand where you're coming from. I deal with conventional wisdom every day.

Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

You may have caught a little flack, but understand that this forum is very dedicated to getting people away from the gobbledygook that has persisted about saving lives by tying electrical equipment to dirt.

Well said, which was my point from the beginning. Ground according to the Article 100 definition means the earth. You cannot solely connect metallic electrical equipment and metallic raceways on the line side of the service disconnect to the earth.

 

[LarryFine]

I deal with conventional wisdom every day.

Common oxymoron.

 

[kwired]

I know all this. I'm not making any such claim. My whole point is everyone uses the term ground to mean different things, even the NEC itself

Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk

This is a forum primarily based on NEC. Though there is no rule to do so, most of the regular participants here try to use NEC terminology as it is defined in NEC, "Ground" and many words with ground as the root or phrases containing such words are defined in NEC for use with the entire document. We also try to encourage those that don't participate as frequently to use those terms just to help clarify their intentions when they are explaining something.

Has been debated many times that NEC should stop using the word 'ground', but if they did I think there would just be a lot of similar confusion focused around other words like maybe 'earth'. So IMO one must learn the terminology and try to use it as intended. The more people that keep consistency with same definitions and use of such words the less confusion there will be.

 

[LarryFine]

This might help:

There is no "ground" coming from the utility, just a conductor that is (usually) earthed. The grounding system begins at the service disconnect, and exists only within the premises. The grounding system is bonded to the neutral for effectiveness of opening over-current devices. If we had no electrical equipment with exposed metallic (conductive) exterior surfaces, there would be little advantage to the premises grounding system.

Electrical systems existed and operated long before the grounding system became standard. Even having a grounded conductor wasn't standard for many years, and GFCIs wouldn't have worked. Polarized wiring (such as that which assures the screw-shell of the typical lamp holder is connected to the grounded conductor) would have little purpose. Note that table lamps escape the grounding requirement because of that polarization.

 

[kwired]

This might help:

There is no "ground" coming from the utility, just a conductor that is (usually) earthed. The grounding system begins at the service disconnect, and exists only within the premises. The grounding system is bonded to the neutral for effectiveness of opening over-current devices. If we had no electrical equipment with exposed metallic (conductive) exterior surfaces, there would be little advantage to the premises grounding system.

Electrical systems existed and operated long before the grounding system became standard. Even having a grounded conductor wasn't standard for many years, and GFCIs wouldn't have worked. Polarized wiring (such as that which assures the screw-shell of the typical lamp holder is connected to the grounded conductor) would have little purpose. Note that table lamps escape the grounding requirement because of that polarization.

Per NEC there is no "ground-ing" conductor coming fro the utility. There is a "ground-ed" conductor. If the utility has a MGN distribution system, you have even more electrodes making up a huge grounding network, though the NEC doesn't really care about those for an individual premises and the service supplying it, it does have differences in how much impedance there is to "the earth" then there is for an isolated on site power production that only has local electrodes.

GFCI's do work even on non grounded systems, they just don't trip on the first fault to ground as that will not cause current to stray from the intended circuit path, but a second ground fault can lead to current outside the monitored path and then they will trip.

 

[LarryFine]

Per NEC there is no "ground-ing" conductor coming fro the utility. There is a "ground-ed" conductor. If the utility has a MGN distribution system, you have even more electrodes making up a huge grounding network, though the NEC doesn't really care about those for an individual premises and the service supplying it, it does have differences in how much impedance there is to "the earth" then there is for an isolated on site power production that only has local electrodes.

May I take this to mean you agree with my post?

GFCI's do work even on non grounded systems, they just don't trip on the first fault to ground as that will not cause current to stray from the intended circuit path, but a second ground fault can lead to current outside the monitored path and then they will trip.

By a GFCI "working", I mean on the first fault.

 

[kwired]

May I take this to mean you agree with my post?


By a GFCI "working", I mean on the first fault.

I think I am in agreement with you, just putting a little emphasis on a couple things that can be taken too loosely.

The GFCI thing - yes it won't trip on first fault, but you need to understand it's intention which is to protect people from shock hazards. That first fault isn't much of a shock hazard, it simply makes a ground reference and the system is now grounded, though unintentionally.