On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:03:10 -0400 John Gilmer wrote: | | . |>
|> The US National Electric Code also is a blunt instrument in terms of |> covering technical issues with proper procedures and methods. What |> would be the issue in this case that would make people not want to |> allow an exception so that neutral and EGC of the same circuit can |> share the same hole? | | Didn't someone already cite the NEC words that say that NEUTRALs don't | "share." "Grounds" can share. I suspect that in many panels, the "next | time" you modify or add a circuit, you consider "curing" these violations.
There are 3 possibly semantics:
- Neutral sharing with neutral ... obviously of a different circuit.
- Ground sharing with ground ... obviously of a different circuit.
- Neutral sharing with ground ... could be the same circuit.
The words stated were not specific enough to precisely identify all of these semantics.
| A short term interruption of "ground" should not hurt anything whereas a | short term interruption of neutral mgiht easily damage or destroy lots of | expensive "stuff."
Of course. This explains why neutrals must never share with a wire from any _other_ circuit. But, this risk is not present if the neutral shares with ground on the very _same_ circuit ... any more so that is the risk of someone just pulling out the neutral of a live circuit (e.g. traced the wire down wrong).
Anyway, I'm looking for wording that is specific enough that shows who composed that wording absolutely considered case #3, as opposed to someone who only considered cases #1 and #2. It is possible for someone considers only #1 and #2 to come up with the very same wording as someone who also considered case #3, but that would not make it clear that case #3 was being considered. So under the current wording, it is simply unclear whether case #3 is intended to be prohibited (for some different reason not yet stated), or was not considered. If #3 is intended to be prohibited, I do want to know the hazard such a prohibition intends to protect from.
Whether we like it or not, semantics and words do play a critical role here. The NEC is full of subtle wording that can differentiate between whether a method is permitted, prohibited, excluded, included, or just not considered. Engineers as a group tend to be poor at good wording (not that lawyers are any better), though there will be some exceptions that stand out. While it does appear to me that the NEC was written by those with an above average ability to compose good wording, it is also not perfect at this.