teufelhounden91
Senior Member
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
I've recently watched Mike Holt's video on electrical fundamentals and common grounding myths. I talked to my Master Electrician about how Mike states current leaves source and returns to source and that current does not seek ground; it seeks a return path back to where it came from. Mike also talks about how putting a ground rod at a pole is pointless and serves no purpose. I brought these things up to my master electrician and he disagreed with both of them. He states that current is always going to travel from one side of an imbalance to another, and will find something at a lower potential to travel to – whatever that maybe. He also stated that the neutral conductor is grounded somewhere down the line from the utility so current through a neutral is still making it to ground somewhere. He said that a light pole that has anchors encased in concrete has a very high impedance path to ground so the purpose of the ground rod at a pole is to bond to the steel and give a lower impedance path to ground than the steel through the concrete. He feels that putting a ground rod at a pole can only improve the possibility of lightning making it to ground, rather than relying on the steel in the concrete. He believes the more grounds the better, which is another one of Mike Holt's myths. My question is maybe due to my misunderstanding of Mike Holt's theory, but isn't a neutral "created" (for lack of a better term) by the utility in the windings of their generator? The neutral is not a neutral because it is referencing earth correct? It is a neutral because it is tapped at a midpoint in a coil of wire. Or is it tapping the midpoint and bringing it to ground what makes the whole neutral concept to work in the first place?