Originally Posted by
Carl Eisen
I suggest that if the panels are wired improperly, ie. the neutral is bonded in a panel after the service entrance equipment, then there is the potential for current.
"Potential for current" as in "possible for neutral current on the ground wire", not as in "potential = voltage", right?
This potential increases as the resistance decreases between the panels.
This "possibility" (see above) does not increase nor decrease based on distance.
The resistance in the neutral and the ground is reduced, thus, 'along with the "possibility" for current (which is not related to distance) comes the "possibility for greater neutral current on the ground conductor due to the reduced resistance of the conductor".
Along with reducing the resistance of the ground conductor path comes a reduction in the resistance of the neutral conductor, thus the "possibility" for current does not change.
With the neutral bonded to ground at a panel downstream from the service equipment ... there *will be* current on the ground conductor path. Current does not seek the path of least resistance, current seeks *ALL* paths, and, if the resistance of *each* path is known (or can be determined - as 'with an ohm meter'), then the amount of current on *each* path can be calculated.
Distance does, however, affect the relationship between the ground conductor path and the neutral conductor because the the resistance of the ground conductor path (I am using 'ground conductor path' as some of it may be ground "conductor" and some of it may be "metal raceway or enclosure", i.e., "path") will reduce by a greater amount than the resistance of the neutral conductor will (unless both are the same size conductor, of the same material, and of the same length, i.e., a metal raceway/enclosure "path" will have a greater resistance than a "conductor", thus, cutting the distance of each in half will reduce the higher resistance by a greater amount).
Did I make clear that up ... or make or muddier?
