Why not call it EBC instead of EGC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon456 said:
I know that GEC stands for "Grounding Electrode Conductor": it is the conductor from the service panel to the grounding electrode. The point I was making in my post is that a GEC is a conductor for grounding (electrically connecting to the grounding electrode). Whereas an EGC is for BONDING electrical equipment to the breaker panel: it provides a safety fault path for tripping the OCPD; it is not used for grounding to earth.
Click to expand...

I will first say that I am on the side of the fence that says we should change it to "EBC" and get "ground" out of it. However, note that the part of your post that I Bolded, is not correct. The NEC DOES require us to connect equipment to earth - it says so right in the beginning of article 250. Granted it is of relatively minor importance compared to bonding to the source for fault clearing, but nonetheless we are also required to connect to dirt so what you said is not really accurate. Technically then, it should be called an "equipment grounded and bonding conductor."
 
ActionDave said:
I personally believe this garbage about trying to get the terms bonded and bonding adopted by the code is leading to way more confusion.

The protracted argument you had was with somebody who didn't know what either table and their respective conductors are for. Once you clear on it it doesn't matter what they are called. In Europe their EGC is called protective earth and they call a connection to ground earthing. I have no problem with that.

My personal preference is there is one bond, at the service or sds and there is one connection to earth there. Everything else is a grounded conductor and equipment grounding. Simple is better. If I say to you equipment grounding you know exactly what I'm talking about. We just need more electricians to understand basic electricity and use the current language, with a slight tweak emphasizing equipment grounding and what it's for, and things will get a lot better. Trying to adopt a whole new vocabulary will only make things worse.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about Europe so I can't comment on that, but, other than that, I totally agree with Action Dave.

JAP>
 
Seems to me that you need definitions regardless of the term used. The fact that all the conductors in question generally tie into one another somehow is what I think confuses many, and will continue to confuse some regardless of what name you give them. As said why not call them Larry, Moe or Curly? Each one has a specific function even though they usually all tie together at some point.
 
K8MHZ said:
How about "Fault Path Conductor" for a conductor that is intended to provide a path back to the source in the event of a fault?

GEC could stay the same without confusion.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with "grounded", "grounding", and "electrode", which is sort of what we already have but with supplementary wording that goes with each term. No matter what is used you must have a definition and if people would just read and pay attention to the definition there would be less confusion. The other alternative is using terms that consist of more then just one, two or three words. That will add several pages to the NEC, and take more effort to mention such names if trying to properly use the correct terminology, I'm all for using single word terms and push for understanding what the definitions mean. Many already use the three I suggested above as somewhat of an abbreviation of what is the true NEC terms.
 
jumper said:
I agree with the second half-"what does it do", but I will say relying on color is a good way to get yourself hurt or killed.

Been zapped by a green wire and have traced it out to find it connected to a breaker. A lot of white wires used as a hot never get marked.
Click to expand...

Green was allowed as a hot until the 2005 NEC
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
What would be unsafe about it?
Click to expand...
A variety of faults, including arcing faults to ground, could pump the X0 of an ungrounded system up to twice or more the line to neutral voltage with respect to ground without tripping any protection.
That sounds unsafe to me.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The Canadian Electrical Code changed from Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor a number of years ago. Their instructors tell me that it has made this subject much easier for the students to understand after the code made that change. ...
Click to expand...
It's that coming from a clear majority of instructors, or even a good statistical sample?
 
ActionDave said:
When do you want to come over for dinner and beverages of your choice?
Click to expand...

I don't think I could make it there since I'd have to take the sidewalk that leads to the driveway that leads to the street that leads to the highway that leads to the interstate that I'd probably have to take to get there.

Just too many different confusing names.
Much like this confusing grounding stuff. :)


JAP>
 
K8MHZ said:
How about "Fault Path Conductor" for a conductor that is intended to provide a path back to the source in the event of a fault?
Click to expand...
That's not an EGC's only purpose. I'll let you unaware guys figure that one out.

Perhaps "Safety Conductor"? :blink:
 
jap said:
I don't think I could make it there since I'd have to take the sidewalk that leads to the driveway that leads to the street that leads to the highway that leads to the interstate that I'd probably have to take to get there.

Just too many different confusing names.
Much like this confusing grounding stuff. :)


JAP>
Click to expand...
That is not quite as confusing as driving on a parkway or parking on the driveway.
 
Leave it the way it is. I hate it when I know what something means and how to use it and then it gets changed to something "better".

And you kids get off my lawn!

:D
 
ggunn said:
Leave it the way it is. I hate it when I know what something means and how to use it and then it gets changed to something "better".

And you kids get off my lawn!

:D
Click to expand...
Tell me about it, 1999 and 2002 NEC both worked on major restructuring of the code. Maybe wasn't so many actual changes to how we were doing things, but took a while to get used to where to find things after they had been moved.
 
kwired said:
Tell me about it, 1999 and 2002 NEC both worked on major restructuring of the code. Maybe wasn't so many actual changes to how we were doing things, but took a while to get used to where to find things after they had been moved.
Click to expand...

It's like an "upgrade" of a software program where the program writers don't change the functionality of the program, they just move things around so that you have to relearn the interface. I guess those guys have to keep busy doing something...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top