Posts Moved From The Big Picture Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ches2443

ches2443

Member
Location
deal island, maryland
I feel that the ground rod was misnamed; it should of been called the bond rod. (In a nutshell) Bonding is to equalize two unequal potentials. Grounding is for tripping breakers during ground faults.
 
ches2443 said:
I feel that the ground rod was misnamed; it should of been called the bond rod. (In a nutshell) Bonding is to equalize two unequal potentials. Grounding is for tripping breakers during ground faults.
Click to expand...

Can't agree there, if there is anything we are going to call 'ground' in the NEC it better be the item that actually connects to the earth. :)

IMO the term 'grounding' should be used exclusively for the items that make up the grounding electrode system.

What we presently call the equipment grounding conductor should be renamed the equipment bonding conductor.
 
iwire said:
Can't agree there, if there is anything we are going to call 'ground' in the NEC it better be the item that actually connects to the earth. :)

IMO the term 'grounding' should be used exclusively for the items that make up the grounding electrode system.

What we presently call the equipment grounding conductor should be renamed the equipment bonding conductor.
Click to expand...
Here,here!! I couldn't agree more. These terms would lead to so much less confusion.:)
 
iaov said:
Here,here!! I couldn't agree more. These terms would lead to so much less confusion.:)
Click to expand...
CMP 5 didn't agree when I and two others submitted proposals to that effect for the 2005 code.
 
iwire said:
Can't agree there, if there is anything we are going to call 'ground' in the NEC it better be the item that actually connects to the earth. :)

IMO the term 'grounding' should be used exclusively for the items that make up the grounding electrode system.

What we presently call the equipment grounding conductor should be renamed the equipment bonding conductor.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding:

There is system grounding and there is equipment grounding. The first is where one dedicated portion of the electrical system is intentionally connected to a qualified ground electrode that is in direct contact with the earth.

There is equipment grounding conductor where the conductive enclosure of an electrical equipment or other equipment that contains electrical parts is connected to the same or similar electrode as describe above.

Bonding occurs when conductive - but not current-carying - parts of electrical equipment or equipment containing electrical equipment is purposefully and intentionally connected to each other within one electrical system. The said equipment may or may not also have a grounding connection.

(I wonder why the US folks do not take a look at the IEC work on the issue that is much better defined in this case with earthing and protective earthing, etc. Not invented here syndrome?)
 
Electricity does not seek the path of least resistance to the earth. It seeks all available paths back to it?s source, in proportion to their resistance. The reason that a person gets shocked when touching an ungrounded conductor and the earth is because the neutral of the system is repeatedly connected to earth in a grounded electrical system. The earth becomes part of a return path to the transformer ? it?s part of one route back to the source; the earth is not the destination for the electricity.
Click to expand...

I agree and in that opinion I set up an experiment in my shop to establish some evidence to this belief.

I wired a circuit with a switched light on a GFCI protected receptacle. Connected another switch in parallel downstream of the first switched light. With the first switch close, light lit, and the second switch open I connected a load on the ungrounded terminal on the load side of the second opened switch and the GFCI receptacle open every time.

My conclusion, was that the current on the ungrounded conductor was trying to seek all paths back to it's source and created an unbalanced condition in the GFCI receptacle and it opened the receptacle.
 
Michael15956 said:
I agree and in that opinion I set up an experiment in my shop to establish some evidence to this belief.

I wired a circuit with a switched light on a GFCI protected receptacle. Connected another switch in parallel downstream of the first switched light. With the first switch close, light lit, and the second switch open I connected a load on the ungrounded terminal on the load side of the second opened switch and the GFCI receptacle open every time.

My conclusion, was that the current on the ungrounded conductor was trying to seek all paths back to it's source and created an unbalanced condition in the GFCI receptacle and it opened the receptacle.
Click to expand...

Reread post and the load was actually connected to the ungrounded side of the switched light and the load was in no way connected to service panel.
 
dmanda24 said:
Is the information in here still valid for the 2008 NEC
Click to expand...
I think so. What do you think?

weressl said:
(I wonder why the US folks do not take a look at the IEC work on the issue that is much better defined in this case with earthing and protective earthing, etc. Not invented here syndrome?)
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate? Proposal season is closing on us.
 
seems to me that they are in fact the same thing with the same potential it is the isolation of one that separates their ability, hence the confusion. I agree with i wire on the terms to be used or the term isolated bonding conductor would be fine but probably not very popular with the
(it has to have ground in the name people.) :grin:
 
iaov said:
Did they tell you a reason for rejecting the proposal?
Click to expand...
Yes..they said the change in terms would be too confusing and create a bigger problem than the one I was trying to solve.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Yes..they said the change in terms would be too confusing and create a bigger problem than the one I was trying to solve.
Click to expand...

Pretty lame excuse IMO.

Every code change creates some confusion, that does not stop them from changing the bonding requirements for pools each code cycle.
 
What happens when the service neutral fails?

What happens when the service neutral fails?

The code directs us not to use the earth for a ground fault current path. When the system neutral (between the service and the utility) fails or becomes energized the only ground path is the ground rod, water pipe or grounding electrode.

The only current path in this case is the earth ground between the service and the utility transformer. If the neutral becomes energized the only path to ground for the now neutral voltage and current is the grounding system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top