Name change for "neutral"

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

karl riley

Senior Member
We have gotten used to saying "neutral" when we mean grounded conductor. It's a lot easier to say and write. "Grounded conductor" is too long for common use.

But Mike Holt and others have rightly urged us to use the correct word, since neutral is correct only in multi-phase circuits.

I tried to deal with this when revising my EMF book and decided to just say GC for grounded conductor, and neutral when I meant a true neutral.

What about it? Can we just switch to GC from now on?

Opinions?

Karl
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Attorneys have their language, so do doctors and insurance people.
The electrical industry has it's own language, but the vast area of this country has permitted the use of slang to prevail. It may not have been as important many years ago when the world was a big place, but with the world becoming smaller and smaller every day, it is very important to tighten the language usage in our industry.

In short, I totally agree with you Karl :D

In my classes and seminars I try to emphasize how important it really is.
BTW what is a grounded conductor?
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

We have had some long discussions in the past on this, and I also agree with Karl.

I back Dons' efforts to change "grounding conductor" to "bonding conductor" too.

If we referred to grounding and grounded as earthing and earthed, it would also help clear up some of the loose slang in electrical terms.

Roger
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I think Karl's right on a couple points.

1. The NEC terminology is cumbersome.

2. We do need to be concise.

I think that the NEC terminology is aweful. Not because of how it describes the conductors. But because it's too hard to use.

I beleive a lot of people would rather use slang because it's more efficient and less likely to be mixed up. And un, ing and ed just isn't used by most people.

I think the terminology should be changed myself.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I agree to a point. Changing "grounding conductor" to "bonding conductor" makes sense. Using an abbreviation is OK but not in the Code. If the Code language seems stilted to you, that is OK as long as you understand the language. Remember that the Code language is required to stand up in court. As a result, it must be very concise.

There was an attempt to place a definition of neutral in the Code for 2005 and there was some type of problem with it. It is very difficult to define a word that meets the needs of every Article so it can go into Article 100. :D
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

And un, ing, and ed just isn't used by most people.
I think the terminology should be changed myself.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't with the "un, ing, and ed". People use these terms every day with no problem, when they understand the root word that they are attached to, plus a bit of grammar.

Example - I am amused at this discussion, while he finds it amusing, and she is unamused. :)

I believe that it is the root word "ground" that isn't well understood. The solution lies in more electrical education, not finding new terms.
That would only add to the confusion.

That said, I also agree with Don's proposal to change "equipment grounding conductor" to "bonding conductor".

Ed

[ February 16, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Ed MacLaren ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

There is a Task force committees in place to
define the term neutral, and after the 05 cycle
converting Bonding and grounding in 250 will certainly be addressed.

Time will tell.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Something that should be cause for concern is the increasing use of the term "bonding" when "grounding" should have been used.
It seems that some folks think that the two terms are interchangable.

Grounding means connecting a system conductor, or an enclosure, to the earth by means of a grounding electrode.

Bonding simply means connecting. A bonding conductor connects two non-current-carrying parts of the system to each other.

Ed
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I have to agree with Ed on this one. I'm worried about it being confused with bonding jumper now. Bonding is not grounding, it's just a connection, IMO.

I feel neutral is an ok term because if you look at a white wire that's the first things that pops into my head. Being it's the only wire without color, it's neutral.

Maybe it can be called common? Would that work, I'm not sure. What do you think?
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

From another thread :
The NEC has had a difficult time over the years defining "neutral" or "neutral conductor." There have been many definition Proposals over the years but none have made into Art 100.

In the 2005 cycle there were three Proposals and one was accepted "in principle." Its even in the Draft. It was put on "hold" after 11 public Comments were made - not all necessarily in opposition.

The primary problem is that there are at least 5 CMPs with a vested interest in the definition and they are not 100% compatible with a single, simple definition and any truly comprehensive definition becomes unruly - at least in the minds of the CMPs.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, we as community can use common terms. One of the suggestions I've made for our upcoming FAQs is a "glossary" of common terms and acronyms.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Bravo!!!!!!!!! Ed I agree with your first and second post. Words only mean what we are taugght for them to mean. More education with a heavy emphasis on basic theory. I am stunned a surprised almost every day talking to apprentices to EE's that do not have theory understanding.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I personally don't see anything wrong with using the term neutral when it's a neutral. It my opinion it doesn't conflict with the NEC terminology.

The grounded conductor can be a neutral. I'm not confused by that.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Originally posted by paul:
I think y'all know what conductor someone is talking about when they mention the neutral.
Click to expand...
Amen

I guess I would like to separate into two definitions:

Neutral Point: center point of a three phase?blah blah blah (needs work :D )

Neutral Conductor: A grounded conductor that is connected to a neutral point.

That way we can still call our white grounded conductor in our 120V single circuit a neutral without getting our hand slapped?
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

IEEE Std 142-1991 (IEEE Green Book)
Neutral: The point where the potential is equal in amplitude from every other conductor
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

By Ed MacLaren:

The problem isn't with the "un, ing, and ed". People use these terms every day with no problem, when they understand the root word that they are attached to, plus a bit of grammar.

Example - I am amused at this discussion, while he finds it amusing, and she is unamused. :)
Click to expand...
I don't think it's accurate to directly compare this to typical grammer.

The use of the root "amuse" always refers to the same idea.

When using un-"ground"-ed/ing, the word "ground" is always used in describing three entirely different ideas.

:)
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Unless the source of this satire is truly amusing, it is not likely I will be amused by it and thus it will not amuse me.

Bob
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Originally posted by bthielen:
Unless the source of this satire is truly amusing, it is not likely I will be amused by it and thus it will not amuse me.

Bob
Click to expand...
Does this mean you are unamusing? :D
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Actually...I think it means I would be unamused, or...well...I'm not quite sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top