ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 268 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#82371 11/06/02 12:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
How many sent in proposals for the 2005 NEC? I sent in about 175, but all but a few are related to my proposal to change the term "equipment grounding conductor" to "equipment bonding conductor".
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#82372 11/06/02 01:58 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 1
C
C-H Offline
Member
Equipment bonding conductor? Would you care you to elaborate a bit on the reasons for this proposal?

#82373 11/06/02 02:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
In my opinion too many code users automatically think of a connection to earth when they see the word grounding. The connection to earth plays a very small part in the safety of electrical systems. The primary function of the earth connetion is lightning protection. To be able to clear faults the equipment must be "bonded" to the grounded conductor via the equipment "bonding" conductor and the main bonding jumper. The conductor that we call "equipment grounding conductor" is never, in code compliant system connected directly to earth.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#82374 11/06/02 07:23 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
Bravo! Don, it would greatly help in teaching others about the differences...

I have a feeling that "tradition" will prevail, however...

Once, a guy called T&B PT-70Ms (barrell crimps) "Bonding Crimps" and I've been calling them that ever since! I use them for EGCs instead of Greenies in order to save space and make the EGCs impractical for DIYs to open.

To answer the first Q:

I sent in two proposals. One to delete 210.12 (AFCIs, or is it 212.8?), and one to clarify that bathroom recepts to be above the counter or basin.

Something may come of the AFCIs with the flood of ROCs they're probably getting.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 11-06-2002).]


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
#82375 11/06/02 08:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
Don:
BRAVO!!!! The toughest thing to explain is bonding. Good Luck! but, as 66 said "tradition will prevail"
John


John
#82376 11/06/02 10:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 4
Member
Don,

Was it necessary to do so many? Does each occurrance require justification? I submitted a proposal having to do with the format of how Exceptions are listed throughout the Code, but only used one example. Should I have done more?

Bill


Bill
#82377 11/06/02 11:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Bill,
I called the NFPA and they told me that I could do one for all of the ones in Article 250, but all of the other occurrences of "equipment grounding conductor" in the other Articles would require a separate proposals. My substantiation for the change was in my "global" Article 250 proposal, the substantiation for all of the other proposals just said; "this is a coordinating proposal to my proposal to change "equipment grounding conductor" to equipment bonding conductor" in Article 250.
I think that yours is a little different in that it is a style or format change and should be OK without separate proposals.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#82378 11/07/02 02:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 1
C
C-H Offline
Member
Resqcapt19:

I see your point. It is indeed possible to have an "equipment ground" that is not in contact with the actual earth at any point, and still be perfectly safe. In this case it would serve as equipotential bonding only.

I don't like the term equipment grounding conductor, since it's meaning isn't intuitively clear.

How about "Protective conductor"? Then we could use "Protective bonding" to refer to an installation with "Protective conductors". (I.e. it is a "grounded" system, like almost all systems today)

"Protective earth" will then mean that the "Protective bonding" is in contact with earth. (We should take the chance to create a common terminology for all countries. US vs UK vs "Down under" vs Swedish terminology get me confused all the time...)

#82379 11/07/02 08:37 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 518
J
Member
Oops! Missed the deadline! Heck, I'm still thinking in terms of the '99 code- and you expect me to think 2005?
Will there be another opening? Or, do I get to wait another three years?

#82380 11/07/02 09:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
A Q in another thread got me thinking... (Uh oh!)

What about swimming pool bonding? How would the NEC word the requirements differently to avoid confusion in this matter?

[Linked Image]


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5