[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:56:58 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


Whatever is "right" or "wrong", the original poster should consult his
local authority for their interpretations.


The bottom line. It is annoying that code language permits this kind of
disagreement.

You will get no argument from me on that.

This is one of the reasons that I support the proposal to change the
term "Grounding Conductor, Equipment" to "Bonding Conductor, Equipment."

I saw a video from Mike Holt where he used "bonding" and "earthing"
instead of "grounding". I like the split, and getting rid of "ground".
IMHO one reasons article 250 is confusing is the lack of clarity of
whether a section is about bonding or earthing.

bud--


Grounding and earthing are important different concepts worth
understanding. Engineering has used different symbols for the two for a
LONG time.

Grounding in engineering means bonding to a common reference. That
ensures a fault doesn't create a situation where two surfaces have a
different potential where an object (such as a human) would be damaged
(injured) from contact with both.

Earthing bonds (or attempts to) that protective circuit with the
environment (earth). It is really handy when you grab an outside water
faucet in bare feet with a faulty neutral from the service drop.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots