Please explain
- Thread starter stevenmallet
- Start date
- Status
ptonsparky
Tom
- Occupation
- EC - retired
I have enough trouble with spell check for contactor and contractor, and you want to add another to?
We went from 'light fixture' to 'luminaire'.....
Yes, EGC is the correct term in US unless this is ever changed in the code. No one is arguing that. The point is that, just as Mike said in the article I posted, the EGC is actually performing bonding, so the name isn't great.
Infinity also said it well. I added the bold example parts to his post:
"Bonding connects things together and provides the fault clearing path (EGC, MBJ). Grounding connects things to earth (GES,GEC). "
Doing some digging, it looks like don_resqcapt19 had made a proposal to change this to a equipment bonding conductor as well many years ago. There was a forum post that said this.
I think it may have been this seminar that MH described his attempt to change the code. It's a REALLY long video, so it would be hard for me to find the time when/if he says it in here, but I remember this video being great, so if someone hasn't watched this I recommend it. Please take note of where he states the code change request if it happens to be there.
If the name were changed, which I mostly doubt it ever would because it's been around for so long, it would clarify things on what is grounding and what is bonding. Perhaps threads like this would no longer need to come up since it's more clear based on the name.
oldsparky52
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC USA
Maybe Equipment Grounded Bonding Conductor or EGBC
PaulMmn
Senior Member
- Location
- Union, KY, USA
- Occupation
- EIT - Engineer in Training, Lafayette College
But that's not a TLA! ):Maybe Equipment Grounded Bonding Conductor or EGBC
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
What does the EGC do with an ungrounded system (where allowed)?
First fault essentially turns it into a grounded system. A second fault will result in fault current which may or may not be enough to operate an OCPC depending on situation.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Actually he had a 2020 PI to do exactly that. The following was the substantiation for his PI.
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
Interesting. I watched the live stream of his new DVD recordings and I know he said equipment grounding conductor.
Whatever term gets selected I just hope they make it consistent throughout the whole code.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
That was to include 'heavy fixture'.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
We still want conductive surfaces bonded together and tied to structural ground to mitigate shock hazards.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Some people forget that even if there are no earthed surfaces in the vicinity to complete a circuit measurable (and perceptible) current will flow into (onto?) us based on capacitance to earth.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
That is what it is for, I was trying to hint at the fact it is not there for fault clearing on an ungrounded system, and would need to be more than one fault before it will actually even try to do so.
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
I don't think it would clear anything up because the terminology is about one eight of the problem. Like I said you can call it anything, protective earth, equipment bonding, whatever as long as you know what you are doing or care enough to learn it doesn't matter.
We are up against two bigger issues, lack of curiosity and a desire to learn and be proficient in the electrical trades and the ritualization of the earth grounding conductor. We've got electrical engineers who still think you need to drive three ground rods in the pattern of a triangle to get them to work. One of my old supervisors wanted to move the temp generator at one of jobs off the pavement out to the edge of the parking lot so it could be hooked up to a ground rod.
I got into a discussion with one of my electrical inspectors over an in ground pool install when he told me I needed to hook the equipotential bonding grid to the equipment grounding terminal in the breaker panel and I told him no. Then I showed him the code section and handbook commentary and he just kept muttering, "That doesn't make any sense". Would it have helped him if the code stopped using the term equipment grounding terminal and started calling it equipment bonding terminal? We got a lot more work to do than just swapping the phrase equipment bonding with equipment grounding.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
One thing about these terms, NEC does define them and uses them according to those definitions.
Changing the name"equipment grounding conductor" to something that one might think makes more sense still won't change what it means or how it is used for the most part. Say we changed it to "blargh". Not going to try to create something that makes sense here just trying to make an example with something sort of neutral. All that would do for the most part is leave NEC as it is and replace any occurrence of the words "equipment grounding conductor" to "blargh". Would it be easier to understand? Maybe for some, IDK.
Changing the name"equipment grounding conductor" to something that one might think makes more sense still won't change what it means or how it is used for the most part. Say we changed it to "blargh". Not going to try to create something that makes sense here just trying to make an example with something sort of neutral. All that would do for the most part is leave NEC as it is and replace any occurrence of the words "equipment grounding conductor" to "blargh". Would it be easier to understand? Maybe for some, IDK.
The G in EGC has nothing to do with ground/earth for function. Grounding is a specific thing, and this isn't it. So the code change request is really about getting the word "grounding" out of there because it doesn't fit and leads to confusion with actual grounding as defined in the NEC.
"By renaming the EGC to the EBC, the Code terms used will be consistent and remove confusion, it just makes the Code intent clearer. "
And to your other points Dave, changing it to EBC would of course not fix the idiocy by others in the examples you stated. People will continue to be ignorant and misinformed, but this might help. For example, people driving a ground rod at a piece of remote equipment instead of using an EGC because they think "grounding" is an alternative to connecting to EGC since they both have the words "grounding". Maybe that type of thing wouldn't happen as much if people understood what a EGC (EBC?) actually did, and this could be more likely to occur if it didn't contain the word "grounding".
It wouldn't clear anything up? I obviously disagree and this was part of Mike's PI:
"By renaming the EGC to the EBC, the Code terms used will be consistent and remove confusion, it just makes the Code intent clearer. "
The existence of other problems doesn't mean this isn't a problem that can be fixed.
And to your other points Dave, changing it to EBC would of course not fix the idiocy by others in the examples you stated. People will continue to be ignorant and misinformed, but this might help. For example, people driving a ground rod at a piece of remote equipment instead of using an EGC because they think "grounding" is an alternative to connecting to EGC since they both have the words "grounding". Maybe that type of thing wouldn't happen as much if people understood what a EGC (EBC?) actually did, and this could be more likely to occur if it didn't contain the word "grounding".
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
We agree more than we disagree. I just choose to build on the vocabulary we already have instead of changing. Instead of trying to get everyone to start talking about bonding why don't we get rid of the term grounding by calling it earthing?
More important to me is that we get the terms nailed down and use them consistently. I was around when this whole idea of adding bonding to the electrical lexicon came of age and as far as I'm concerned it made things worse because it got sprinkled around in the code here and there. I am aware that I have a minority opinion about this and eventually the language will get changed to equipment bonding conductor. I hope it happens soon so I can get the chance to see if I was right before I die. The thing is I don't see the Dirt Worshipers losing any ground yet and that is more of a problem than what we name the green wire.
What matters to me most is that we get electricians who not only understand grounding and bonding but understand theory and conductor sizing and circuitry and all other parts of the job so we can elevate the trade, be more professional, get paid more, and be much more safe.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
The fact that these conductors usually all tie together at some point leads to some misunderstanding IMO.
That's a good point. And there are sometimes options for where that connection is made probably adds to this as well.
I certainly don't think the word "bonding" is the answer to everything. It just happens to be one that is already used for the same purpose.. MBJ... SBJ.. SSBJ.. etc.. so it's easy for me to get onboard that train.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
And as I said earlier NEC defines all these terms yet people tend to not pay close enough attention and the fact the base word "ground" is embedded within many those terms they tend to think they all have about same meaning, but they don't. Then on top of that they all tie together at some point (in most cases) and that further reinforces the misunderstanding that they all have about same function.
That's a good point. And there are sometimes options for where that connection is made probably adds to this as well.
I certainly don't think the word "bonding" is the answer to everything. It just happens to be one that is already used for the same purpose.. MBJ... SBJ.. SSBJ.. etc.. so it's easy for me to get onboard that train.
Then throw in the somewhat abnormal situations of ungrounded systems, corner grounded delta systems, or impedance grounded systems and you get even more confusion from anyone that doesn't understand it well. But in all those cases NEC is still consistent with using those words within it's own definitions, which is the first key to understanding all of this.
Then there is slang that is commonly used in the trade.
Typical 120 volt circuit has "hot, neutral and ground".
NEC calls those same three conductors "ungrounded conductor, grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor". To someone not familiar or too lazy to look at the definitions this can be confusing - all three of them have "ground" within them.
- Status