ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#82371 - 11/06/02 08:22 AM 2005 proposals
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2148
Loc: IL
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)
Top
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#82372 - 11/06/02 09:58 AM Re: 2005 proposals
C-H Offline
Member
Registered: 09/17/02
Posts: 1497
Loc: Stockholm, Sweden
Equipment bonding conductor? Would you care you to elaborate a bit on the reasons for this proposal?
Top
#82373 - 11/06/02 10:28 AM Re: 2005 proposals
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2148
Loc: IL
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)
Top
#82374 - 11/06/02 03:23 PM Re: 2005 proposals
sparky66wv Offline
Member
Registered: 11/17/00
Posts: 2232
Loc: West Virginia
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
Top
#82375 - 11/06/02 04:42 PM Re: 2005 proposals
HotLine1 Offline


Member
Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6775
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Don:
BRAVO!!!! The toughest thing to explain is bonding. Good Luck! but, as 66 said "tradition will prevail"
John
_________________________
John
Top
#82376 - 11/06/02 06:55 PM Re: 2005 proposals
Bill Addiss Offline
Member
Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3875
Loc: NY, USA
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
Top
#82377 - 11/06/02 07:09 PM Re: 2005 proposals
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2148
Loc: IL
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)
Top
#82378 - 11/07/02 10:25 AM Re: 2005 proposals
C-H Offline
Member
Registered: 09/17/02
Posts: 1497
Loc: Stockholm, Sweden
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...)
Top
#82379 - 11/07/02 04:37 PM Re: 2005 proposals
John Steinke Offline
Member
Registered: 04/03/01
Posts: 518
Loc: Reno,Nv., USA
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?
Top
#82380 - 11/07/02 05:19 PM Re: 2005 proposals
sparky66wv Offline
Member
Registered: 11/17/00
Posts: 2232
Loc: West Virginia
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?

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

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 11/17/00
Posts: 2232
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box


Who's Online
1 registered (cableguy619), 64 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
 
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 51
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 17
Trumpy 16
Ruben Rocha 13
 
Newest Members
clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN, Regitest2, sureshazhagai

ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals