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
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
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, 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
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...)