Why not call it EBC instead of EGC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Calling EGC by its correct terminology

Calling EGC by its correct terminology

When will the NEC start calling equipment grounding conductors as equipment bonding conductors? In the NEC ground or earth does zero with fault clearing, yet the name implies it does. Its that use of the word "ground" that makes it so confusing for apprentices, lay people and even professionals. When someone would ask me why EGCs are called grounding, I had no way of answering that, and to be honest I still do not.

Hopefully in the 2020 cycle someone will come to their senses. Can we make this happen?
 
I assume the myth came from laymen (who didn't know or understand system grounding, capacitive coupling or kirchoff's) who noticed one could get shocked by touching the ground so they just assumed the electrons had a proclivity for dirt?
 
infinity said:
I wouldn't waste any time with trying to get a code change. There have been numerous proposals over the past several code cycles and the CMP simply doesn't want to change it. This is one of many panel statements on the subject:
Click to expand...

But why call a plane a boat or a brain a kidney? I fully understand the article itself clarifies the intended purpose, but I'd like them to make a comparison to any other industry (like medicine for example) that continues to call something by which it has nothing to do with its function or purpose.

Also- there own statement technically miss-uses the term "grounding" when it should be bonding. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
 
Last edited:
mbrooke said:
But why call a plane a boat or a brain a kidney? I fully understand the article itself clarifies the intended purpose, but I'd like them to make a comparison to any other industry (like medicine for example) that continues to call something by which it has nothing to do with its function or purpose.

Also- there own statement technically miss-uses the term "grounding" when it should be bonding. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Click to expand...
Changing the names is not the answer. Staying consistent is.
It's not about calling a boat a house instead of a houseboat. And it's not at all about trying to call a cow a spaceship. Grounded conductors have something in common with equipment grounding conductors, they are bonded to each other forever at the service.

Adding in the terms bonded and bonding when trying to describe equipment grounding does not eliminate ambiguity, it adds to it. "If I am only supposed to bond my neutral to the ground at the service why are you telling me I need to bond everything together inside the building?"

If we, who understand what each conductor is to be used for no matter what it is named, consistently use the term equipment grounding conductor where appropriate understanding by the rest of the electrical world will follow.
 
ActionDave said:
Changing the names is not the answer. Staying consistent is.
It's not about calling a boat a house instead of a houseboat. And it's not at all about trying to call a cow a spaceship. Grounded conductors have something in common with equipment grounding conductors, they are bonded to each other forever at the service.
Click to expand...

Bonded or protective conductor is also consistent if used through out.


Adding in the terms bonded and bonding when trying to describe equipment grounding does not eliminate ambiguity, it adds to it. "If I am only supposed to bond my neutral to the ground at the service why are you telling me I need to bond everything together inside the building?"
Click to expand...

Hows that different from grounded and grounding?


If we, who understand what each conductor is to be used for no matter what it is named, consistently use the term equipment grounding conductor where appropriate understanding by the rest of the electrical world will follow.
Click to expand...


Reality says otherwise.

Again, you are not grounding anything- and by the NECs own terms ground means earth. Ad an ED or ING:

Grounded (Grounding). Connected (connecting) to
ground or to a conductive body that extends the ground
connection.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with intentions of fault clearing, and even though ground is defined solely as the earth it takes on 20 other meanings through out the rest of the code.
 
Last edited:
electrofelon said:
God point. The first systems were single wire earth return so it "looked like" the current was going into the dirt.
Click to expand...
And current was going into the dirt, but it also was coming back out someplace else and finishing it's path back to the source via a conventional conductor. Bottom line is earth is a conductor, but isn't always easy to make a low resistance connection to it.

ActionDave said:
Changing the names is not the answer. Staying consistent is.
It's not about calling a boat a house instead of a houseboat. And it's not at all about trying to call a cow a spaceship. Grounded conductors have something in common with equipment grounding conductors, they are bonded to each other forever at the service.

Adding in the terms bonded and bonding when trying to describe equipment grounding does not eliminate ambiguity, it adds to it. "If I am only supposed to bond my neutral to the ground at the service why are you telling me I need to bond everything together inside the building?"

If we, who understand what each conductor is to be used for no matter what it is named, consistently use the term equipment grounding conductor where appropriate understanding by the rest of the electrical world will follow.
Click to expand...
I agree, changing names still will leave confusion, the physics won't change, and when you have several different items that all do tie together at some point you need to look at and understand the function of each component, just because they all tie together doesn't mean they all perform the same function.
 
kwired said:
I agree, changing names still will leave confusion, the physics won't change, and when you have several different items that all do tie together at some point you need to look at and understand the function of each component,
Click to expand...


Can I be honest? ;) I see a lot of resistance to change without much meat to back it up, almost like trying to find accuses because 'its always been like that'. This is not to bash anyone, but I think this is partly why the NEC is becoming bureaucratic. We should be trying to simplify the NEC, make it more understandable rather then keeping it muddy while pilling more on top of that.


just because they all tie together doesn't mean they all perform the same function.
Click to expand...

That is true- but still we have a misnomer. No matter what you are not bringing earth to the frame of an appliance, nor does earth exist within the frame of an appliance, ie "ground fault"
 
mbrooke said:
That is true- but still we have a misnomer. No matter what you are not bringing earth to the frame of an appliance, nor does earth exist within the frame of an appliance, ie "ground fault"
Click to expand...

You may have a point about not bringing the earth to the frame thing, but, as far as no earth existing within the frame of an appliance,,,, unless you've cleaned underneath your washer, dryer, refrigerator or freezer lately, I'd beg to differ. :)

JAP>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top