Talk:Ground (electricity)

Earth not Soil
@user:62.172.216.78 This diff was influenced by the history of this subject. A pot of soil was not the ground of telegraphy as evidenced by the top image of this article; rather a pot of soil misconstrues the link, just as the ground of a spacecraft bus belies the ground offered by Earth. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 20:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone else feels like undoing the change and putting a link back to "soil". This is the image that brought me here in the first place! Dave Barnett (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That's hilarious. Might work if the National Grid earth was connected to the same pot of soil, but I suspect they would want to run a rather large conductor into your house. SpinningSpark 09:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Archiving size
User:Spinningspark wants a smaller archive size 17500 bytes. I think that the maximum size 17500 Byte of one archive is very small. Sawol (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not have this discussion repeated on multiple pages. See Talk:Fractal antenna. SpinningSpark 09:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change "a direction physical connection to the ground" to "earth".
Instead of back and forth edits between me and Wtshymanski, I want to state my intention and reasoning on editing point no. 3 on the definition of grounding/earthing. Currently it is stated as "a direct physical connection to the ground", which I think is ambiguous in two contexts.

1) "A direct physical connection to the ground" in the context of an urban area/city does not make any sense because the ground in the surrounding areas are all man-made concrete which are not conductive (with the exception of ufer ground, not always a common practice in parts of the world). Instead the earthing/grounding electrodes are below the ground/surface level.

2) "A direct physical connection to the ground" can be confusing if the perspective is that of an electronic/electrical engineer that does not deal with mains power systems, because "ground" as a term is overloaded in that context to mean "a common return path for electric current" (point no. 2).

Thus, I will suggest changing point no. 3 to "a direct physical connection to the earth". This makes the context of using an earthing/grounding electrode much clearer in urban areas/cities, and removes the ground term ambiguity in electronics (or in other electrics, automotive). Sometimes a stricter definition is much better! 116.15.189.246 (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP that the term “earth” is less ambiguous than “ground” in this context and should be used --ChetvornoTALK 19:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your car positive ground or negative ground? It's certainly not connected to Earth. Nor is the frame of a 767 going overhead, nor the chassis of a Mars rover. Ground is a definition, and may have something to do with the Earth, but often not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to rain on the parade, but in the UK where we use correct English and technical terms, vehicles are predominantly 'negative earth', though they were 'positive earth' in the 1960's and early 1970's. They are not provided with any necessary cabling to connect the chassis of vehicle to the actual earth. 86.131.235.171 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is an WP:ENGVAR issue here. UK generally uses the term "earth" rather than "ground" both generally and in an automotive context. SpinningSpark 15:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And the title of this article is? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ... ambiguous. In those parts of the world that use real English, the electrical term 'grounded' means something entirely different. You do not want to touch anything that is grounded. The article title should be changed to "Earth (electricity)" and every use of the word 'ground' or any derivation changed to 'earth'. If there is to be an article "ground (electricity)", it should document its real meaning. 86.131.235.171 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wtshymanski, your statement is addressed in the article as "a common return path for electric current". The changes in question are about earth electrodes. 61.253.159.54 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Confusing discussion inspired by ungrounded system sales efforts
An exposition on grounding for the general public is not improved by the inclusion of information suited only to sell equipment used for ungrounded (actually high impedance ground) systems that employ electronic trips to detect and clear faults. These systems rely on continuous supervision by a trained plant staff for continued safe operation, and are rarely found. power systems in general use must be grounded by law in most/all nations to avoid a ground fault of one part of the system causing other parts to have a large ground relative potential creating a safety hazard. The ungrounded system relies on equipment more likely to fail than a large copper conductor, hence less safe

More commonly used is an isolated ground system that segregates the equipment grounding conductor and the grounded power conductor so that the voltage drop of the grounded power conductor is not impressed onto the equipment grounding conductor. Where there is an isolated ground the measurable ‘ground shift’ is often several volts, occasionally more, and may be tens of volts during during a line to ground fault (short circuit between the ungrounded and grounded power conductor). The discussion of medical monitors is an example direct from the vendor’s sales page, and quite mistaken. Medical monitors and patient care electronics don’t use low impedance ground connections. The isolated ground does reduce electrical noise, but it’s principal safety advantage is because the frame and metal side rails of a patient bed with electric motors is connected to the equipment grounding conductor.

The outdoor equipment in a damp environment example is specious, and better addressed by GFCI. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)