Name change for "neutral"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Name change for "neutral"

hi engy, There is another possibility for sure and maybe a 'Grounded Circuit' return to neutral can be condensed to a gc rtn for short. I am curious to hear opinions on what the difference is between bonded and bonding. (I.e. a grounded conductor bonded connection vs a grounding conductor termination bonding!)

Bonding in airframe terminology is not well understood either. Bonded surfaces relate to surface finish roughness in faying conditions that are associated with conductive quality between associated materials. IMO, bonding would be a connection for both a ground or ungrounded conductor in a true sense of defining the physics involved. Bonding a grounding connection and a bonded grounded circuit makes sense if there is a consistent adherence in the NEC dialog. Anyone, jump in.
(WHoopss. :eek: I am also responding to Karl's GC.)

rbj, Seattle

[ February 17, 2005, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: gndrod ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Originally posted by jimwalker:
Read what he posted and get back to me.I am sorry but grounded and grounding seems so simple.Perhaps not to everyone.
Click to expand...
Jim, are you telling me with a straight face that the first day you picked up a codebook you had a unshakeable understanding of what "ungrounded, grounded, grounding" meant? When did you buy your first NEC, after you passed your journeymans??? Good for you.

As a four-to-five month apprentice, I purchased a codebook, because I was tired of doing things wrong and having to redo them, to do them to code. I often heard, redo that, it's not to code. Instead of backseat learning as to what the code said, I stepped up and bought an NEC and read it. For me, it's impossible to store 800 pages of rules in my head to do the job right. That's why we have a code. :)

I can assure you, that as it stands today, I have an adequate understanding of what the terms mean. I suppose I should have clarified that, but, I guess I assumed too much. :D

George ,do not even try to learn how things work fron NEC it is not designed to teach anything
Click to expand...
90.1(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
Click to expand...
Is this what you're referring to? If someone elects to work in this field aren't they trying to lose the label, "Untrained person"? I have learned a lot about things that I do not deal with on a day-to-day basis simply because of my knowledge of certain parts of the code. I find it pretty close-minded to write it off as a rulebook. It's a rulebook that puts spec's on a job done right.

Anyway, no hard feelings, Jim. I just woke up to this, kinda left me a little dazed. :D
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Is it possible that GC could become as confusing because it could mean Grounded Conductor as easily as Grounding Conductor? These are not one and the same, are they?

Bob
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Bob, we would have already changed that other one to "Bonding" conductor and therefor we couldn't have that problem. :D

Since we should only "Earth" at one point, the word "Grounding" would only apply to the GEC and "Grounded" would only apply to the Neutral.

Roger

[ February 17, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

By Charlie:

Remember that the Code language is required to stand up in court.
Click to expand...
By brentp:

"Grounded conductor" doesn't work in the field.
Click to expand...
These two statements are relevant in deciding on a convention.

I personally don't like the idea of using legal jargon to replace terms that properly belong in the electrical and engineering fields. I agree that it's best when we are all using the same language.

However my vote is going to go to the terminology of the field from whence it came.

Lawyers should learn to talk like us, not vise versa.

Besides, I think we people in the industry understand each other just fine. :)

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

Edit: After rereading this it does occur to me that this is an NEC forum, and the NEC terms are also important.

It's a tricky issue, at least for me.

[ February 17, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Bob, if by grounding conductor you mean the equipment grounding conductor, that is already commonly referred to as EGC.

If you mean grounding electrode conductor, that is already GEC.

So I am only proposing adding GC to the other two. Anyhow, I am using it in my book, since my fingers got tired of spelling out grounded conductor.

Karl
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

There have been comments that have suggested that terms such as "grounded conductor" and "ungrounded conductor" are equivalent to legal jargon.

Come on guys. :)

Does that mean that the terms "painted house" and "unpainted house" are too difficult for the average citizen to understand, and should be replaced? :eek:

Ed
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Don't forget UG for the ungrounded conductor... or is that for Under Ground :D

[ February 17, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: engy ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Ed. A lot of us can get along just fine with these terms. But I think you have to agree that a lot of folks are tripping over ground this and unground that grounding thing.

It's confusing. And I don't beleive it's necessary that our language be confusing.

Grounded Supply Conductor
Supply Conductor
Bonding Conductor
Service Grounding Conductor

If we're gonna start choosing terms, I like those.

I've worked with electricity since before I got paid to. The NEC terms don't jive with anything but the NEC. To me, I guess that's what it comes down to.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

you have to agree that a lot of folks are tripping over ground this and unground that grounding thing.
Click to expand...
I do agree, but I believe that most of the confusion stems from the present use of the word "grounding" for the bonding of equipment.

I predict that when this is changed (when Don's proposal is adopted) you will see less of a problem.

That was our experience here (Canada) when we made that change about fifteen years ago.

Ed
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I don't think the field terms would change or that they should change, but in discussions on this forum and in written words in books, many times a correct word or term can unmuddy the waters. (contrary to some belief)

BTW, I don't think unmuddy is a word. ;)


Roger

[ February 17, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

I did not know that you guys in Canada did battle with the Bonding versus grounding thing. I'd expect we'd have the same success. I also agree with Don's proposals, Except I'd remove the word equipment.

As for Roger, after looking back at a recent post of mine, I don't think it's unreasonable to use NEC terms on an NEC forum.

And Charlie, I think it's mutiny on your part, shear mutiny. :)
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

Originally posted by physis:
Except I'd remove the word equipment.
Click to expand...
Can't be done, we need to know what kind of bonding conductor we are talking about.

The type of bonding conductor makes a difference in how we apply the NEC.

As example we use table 250.66 to size a bonding jumper for metal water piping systems. 250.104

In another instance we need to use Table 250.122.

Installation requirements are also different.
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

And Charlie, I think it's mutiny on your part, shear mutiny.
Click to expand...
violent-smiley-017.gif
violent-smiley-021.gif
 
Re: Name change for "neutral"

By Iwire:

Can't be done, we need to know what kind of bonding conductor we are talking about.
Click to expand...
That's true, unless you consider that I also want everything on the GEC side of the service to be called "Service Grounding Conductors" (and jumpers or whatever) and everything on the other side of the MBJ called "Bonding Conductors".


violent-smiley-006.gif
~~--~~--~~
violent-smiley-041.gif
~~--~~--~~
violent-smiley-090.gif

Charlie probably just doesn't realize that this is for his own good!

[ February 18, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top