Source Conduction Theory--- Grounding and Bonding Only Guarantees That An Incipient Event Becomes a Protracted Fault

[mbrooke]

I'm going to put this out here into the arena. Protection against electric shock, electrocution and fire do not normally stem from grounding and bonding, but rather a 3rd concept ignored or not yet fully realized or understood: source conduction.

Grounding and Bonding in of themselves do little to protect people and property, if not escalating hazards, where as source conduction is what removes dangerous touch, step and contact potential along with preventing the over heating, fire and explosion of current carry parts along any other paths electricity may take.

While source conduction may have some overlap with grounding and bonding, or that grounding and bonding can secondarily compliment source conduction, source conduction stands as its own pillar with its own characteristics bearing the brunt of what article 250 is wishfully trying to accomplish through a stool missing its 3rd, most dominant leg.

 

[tom baker]

Source Conduction??? Need batteries for this, or what is it?

 

[mbrooke]

Source Conduction??? Need batteries for this, or what is it?

Correct.

No batteries, a total unwavering ohm value with integrity between X0 and X1, X2 and X3 resulting in automatic disconnection before physiological or structural damage can take place.

 

[tom baker]

???

 

[romex jockey]

Methinks perhaps some are unfamiliar with the term MBrooke.....~S~

 

[mbrooke]

???

As I said, not fully realized.

But to elucidate a bit more on the subject grounding and bonding does not remove dangerous voltage. Only denergization of the fault removes voltage with time dictating safe vs dangerous.

If I may- regarding voltage and time-

 

[mbrooke]

Methinks perhaps some are unfamiliar with the term MBrooke.....~S~

High system circulating currents upon initiation of a fault (low system impedance/source impedance ratio) reduce voltage and achieve rapid disconnection.

 

[mbrooke]

???

Perhaps a pictorial graphic may help? Example:

https://imgur.com/00QHekg

In this graphic, neither grounding or bonding make a difference to the user. Only the fault loop of the system whereby rapid clearing achieves protection. 0.54 ohms, 1 ohms max for a 20 amp breaker.

 

[romex jockey]

Perhaps a pictorial graphic may help? Example:

https://imgur.com/00QHekg

In this graphic, neither grounding or bonding make a difference to the user. Only the fault loop of the system whereby rapid clearing achieves protection. 0.54 ohms, 1 ohms max for a 20 amp breaker.

MBrooke, can you show us the math at greater distances?? ~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

MBrooke, can you show us the math at greater distances?? ~RJ~

Sure. What do you have in mind?

 

[augie47]

I think we need a new Forum room for "z" discussions...
speaking for myself, so far it's been "zzzzzzzzzzz"

 

[mbrooke]

Z is nothing more than R in ohms law

If this is to easy, I can get into the more complex details, but I want to keep it simple (for now) for the everyone's sake.

But with that said every breaker has an ohm value.

 

[romex jockey]

Sure. What do you have in mind?

The education of comparative ~Z~ , for perspective MBrooke ~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

The education of comparative ~Z~ , for perspective MBrooke ~RJ~

Well give me any circuit breaker. Give me your voltage.

That tells me when the breaker needs to open.

Find the time/current crossing on the time current curve plot.

Take that current, then use it to divide your line to neutral voltage to give Z.

That Z is your maximum source conduction value.