RETURN PATH IN LAY-MANS'

[kwired]

I think the NEC would be a world better if we removed every reference to and iteration of the word "ground." Stick with "earthed" and "bonded."

I still think there would be about as much confusion - especially among those not qualified, or only slightly qualified. The key to understanding the conductor(s) in question here is to understand some theory and to apply that theory to what the conductor is being used for.

Voltage/current don't check to see what color the insulation of a conductor is before they decide what to do, electrical theory tells us what will happen when certain conditions are presented.

 

[big john]

...The key to understanding the conductor(s) in question here is to understand some theory and to apply that theory to what the conductor is being used for....

No argument, I just think the terminology leads to a lot of unnecessary misconceptions that then have to be un-taught. Why make it more difficult than it needs to be?

 

[ActionDave]

I like Equipment Bonding Conductor a whole lot better, but it is already taken.

I think the NEC would be a world better if we removed every reference to and iteration of the word "ground." Stick with "earthed" and "bonded."

I'm had an argument with an inspector about having to run a wire from the equipotential bonding grid on an in ground hot tub up to the pool panel. I told him he was wrong.

He said, "It has to."

I showed him the code section.

"That doesn't make any sense".

Uggghhhh. Do I really have time to stand here for a half an hour trying to explain that the bonding wire is not an Equipment Grounding Conductor. He never did agree with me, but said he would look into it.

Would changing the name of an EGC to Equipment Bonding Conductor really make it easier for him to see the light. No. It would probably make it worse. It certainly wouldn't help.

 

[ActionDave]

I still think there would be about as much confusion - especially among those not qualified, or only slightly qualified. The key to understanding the conductor(s) in question here is to understand some theory and to apply that theory to what the conductor is being used for....

That's where I'm at. Changing the name won't change any misconceptions from anybody that doesn't get it.

At least with the term EGC we have common term that those who get it understand and one that we can use to distinguish the difference between a connection to earth and conductor that is used to clear a fault to those that don't get it....anybody, layman, home owner, cute girl I'm trying to impress, young apprentice.....anybody, anywhere, any time.

 

[kwired]

That's where I'm at. Changing the name won't change any misconceptions from anybody that doesn't get it.

At least with the term EGC we have common term that those who get it understand and one that we can use to distinguish the difference between a connection to earth and conductor that is used to clear a fault to those that don't get it....anybody, layman, home owner, cute girl I'm trying to impress, young apprentice.....anybody, anywhere, any time.

If you replaced the root word "ground" with "earth" I don't think it would change any confusion that is out there.

Using conductors that are "grounded" for both normal current carrying functions as well as for bonding non current carrying parts is one factor that introduces confusion whether you call it "grounded", "earthed', or whatever else may come to mind. You could even mix and match "ground" and "earth" within some of the terminology and it would still be confusing for some. As I said the key is understanding the purpose of each type of conductor in question here regardless of what it's name may be.

 

[SMHarman]

What's ironic is that 'return' makes the most sense in DC applications, and in particular electronics, and yet electronics people have a habit of calling the return 'ground.'

:slaphead:

Which does not exist in such arrangement! Truly a live and neutral.

In AC land it is also why I like the Brown and blue of Europe colour scheme. No colorblind people can mix things up and neither truly has that red=hot thing going for it. Both are equal.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[big john]

Kwired, I think we're onthe same page without realizing it. I wasn't suggesting just do a word swap where all grounds=earthed and the confusion is solved. I'm also talking about naming things to better understand their function:

I would like to see EGC rerred to as "bonding." The GES would be regerred to as grounded/earthed.

I suppode we could leave grounded/ungrounded when referring to hots and neautrals, but only because I don't have a better plan.

 

[kwired]

Kwired, I think we're onthe same page without realizing it. I wasn't suggesting just do a word swap where all grounds=earthed and the confusion is solved. I'm also talking about naming things to better understand their function:

I would like to see EGC rerred to as "bonding." The GES would be regerred to as grounded/earthed.

I suppode we could leave grounded/ungrounded when referring to hots and neautrals, but only because I don't have a better plan.

But the grounding and bonding are closely enough associated to one another it already creates too much confusion for some. I really don't see use of other terminology solving much. Either way you have to "bond" things together to the "grounded" conductor at some point - and this effectively makes them one yet they are also different.

I guess if you go to many weddings in a Christian church they typically say the same thing about the couple - they are one yet they are also individuals. Seems to be a lot of confusion about that in today's world as well