Talk:Ground and neutral

grounding to neutral in portable appliances

im sure i have seen it mentioned on a number of sites that at some stage the north americans grounded the case of thier portable appliances to the neutral in some cases. There is a passing reference here at National Electrical Code (U.S.) here but i am sure i have seen it in other places.

There seem to be a lot of american sites giving stark advice against connecting appliances with polarised plugs to unpolarised outputs but little in the way of information on why. Are they merely scaremongering? or is there some other reason? Plugwash 18:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only place a neutral was allowed to be used as a case ground was in a stove, which at the time was permanently wired. I'm told this was an effort to save copper wire during WWII. This exemption was removed from the US code a decade or so back, but I'll have to hunt around to find the date.

As for unpolarized applicances, nearly everything with a polarized plug has a case made of plastic so there's no grounding possible anyway. Double-insulated tools require two independant insulation failures before any part of the case can contact the live circuit - these tools also come with polarized plugs. The only place I can think of this being remotely useful is for portable TV receivers where proper polarization of the plug may help prevent energizing the antenna terminals - but this is pretty far-fetched. Rest assured that in the litiginous US market, if people were being injured by non-polarized plugs, you wouldn't be able to buy them any more. --Wtshymanski 04:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

":: The only place a neutral was allowed to be used as a case ground was in a stove, which at the time was permanently wired. I'm told this was an effort to save copper wire during WWII" , I also understand that it was also due to the way the stoves were manufactured. The heating elements on the stove were 240v elements. Because of this there was no phase imbalance that needed to travel back to the panel over the nuetral. As stoves started getting other functions and manufacturers wanting a phase imbalance (120v) they needed to enforce the idea that the neutral was a return path for imbalance and the ground was for safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.15.105 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a little unsure what "permanently wired" means here. I know that in the past many stoves and electric dryers had (and many still have) three wire plugs that plug into the appropriate three wire outlet. Electric dryers will often have a 120VAC motor to turn the drum, in addition to any lights and timers. There will be some current on the combined neutral/ground wire. Also, a common older stove design switches two heating elements in various combinations, with the lowest ones often connecting a heating element off 120V (hot to neutral). Again, there will be significant, though not full load, current in the combined neutral/ground wire. Gah4 (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If it plugs in, it's not permanently wired. "Permanently wired" means you need a tool to disconnect the appliance. Plug-in devices were not allowed by the codes to use the neutral as a grounding conductor for the case. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm prety sure that electric driers also allowed "neutral as ground" in the past.

With regard to polarised appliances in unpolarized outlets, the only way you can (practically) do that is to cut off the polarising tabs on the neutral pin of the plug. That means that the appliance will never be polarised again. This could mean that, for example, the shell of an light bulb may subsequently be both hot and unswitched, and one could easily get shocked changing the light bulb. Americans are famous for doing something dumb and then trying to find someone to sue over their own error, so the push is to try to prevent them from doing dumb things in the first place.

Atlant 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous text?

The following:

In almost all low voltage (under 1KV) wiring with more than one phase core the neutral fits both of these definitions. and we will assume this is the case for the remainder of this article.

is just wrong. I'd like to remove it. The article needlessly confuses the functions of grounds and neutrals. --Wtshymanski 20:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Core? What's a core?

I'm confused by the term "core" used in paragraph 3, defining Neutral. Are you talking about individual strands of wire or cabling? If so, a diagram would be helpful here. When you say "a core that acts as a common for several phase cores", do you mean that the three different strands carrying the different phases are wrapped around a central strand? If so, in such a case does the central strand provide structural integrity, or is it used to carry charges, or both, or neither? Sorry for asking such basic questions. --RCT3 17:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a core is an insulated current carrying conductor within a cable. A core consists of one or more strands of copper covered in an insulating material.

and yes a neutral that is a common of multiple phase cores will cary current unless the system is perfectly balanced. Plugwash 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a Europeanism. In North America, we'd typically say "conductor" instead.

Atlant 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's call it a conductor, then. That makes much more sense. I'll change it in the next day or so when I have time.24.6.66.193 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose Merger

I don't know how wikipedia manages one-to-many associations. In some languages, a word can have multiple translations in another. There are currently 3 articles for the same thing, Ground and neutral, Ground (electricity), and earthing system. Most languages that have an article on this topic have one. The problem is what to link to from those languages? Doseiai2 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As an interim measure I have put links to all 3 articles on the disambig page for Ground. Biscuittin (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

grounds and neutrals serve two different purposes. Ground is a standard reference. Neutrals are current carrying conductors that act as a return path in a circut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.15.105 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put up merge banners. --Kvng (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that this topic was broached three years ago, and apparently with no resolution. Should it be continued here and now, or should it be discussed in a new section? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I pointed the merge banners at this section. If that's not acceptable, create a new section and adjust the banners. --Kvng (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggest instead refactoring anything relative only to "ground" out of "ground and neutral" into this article and re-naming 'ground and neutral' just 'neutral'. This would hide our collective confusion on these topics from the unwary reader. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also Earthing system which is more about ground than neutral. I'm OK to have three articles on closely-related topics so long as scope is well defined and overlap is minimized. There's a lot of overlap at present. --Kvng (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski, you've taken down the merge banners without doing an of your proposed "refactoring". What's up with that? --Kvng (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again I forgot to clear an edit with the editorial board. You've got any suggestions for what should be moved? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits (removing merge banners) do not match your stated intent to refactor and they do not improve the article. I have not had time to explore what needs to be done here. I do not work quickly. I'm always hopeful that someone will beat me to it. I would prefer that the merge banners stay up until 1/ someone does the merge, 2/ it is agreed here that a merge is unnecessary or 3/ other changes to the article(s) make a merge unnecessary. Two of those three can be done WP:BOLDly. --Kvng (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at Ground and neutral and did not see vast swathes of text better off somewhere else. Maybe I've been desensitized by too much looking at Wikipedia articles but compared to many, this one is actually on-point and gives some context for its babbling. The merge tag was on for months with no activity. If anyone feels moved to spend a weekend refactoring and merging, WP:BOLD but since this was kicked around 3 years ago with no result, it rather indicates interested editors have bigger fish to fry. We still haven't cataloged all the JEDEC part numbers, for goodness' sake. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit on sorting this out. I believe the merge banners are useful to readers editors alike and should remain up until editors feel material is effectively organized. We don't remove a {{refimprove}} banner just because it has been sitting there for too long. --Kvng (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Combining neutral with earth

This may be done in some countries but I'm pretty sure it is not done in the UK. See also my comment at Talk:Electrical bonding. Biscuittin (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong. See Talk:Electrical bonding. Biscuittin (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is done in the UK, NZ and Australia, it doesn't seem prevalent in the world, so the wording "Neutral is usually connected to ground (earth) at the main electrical panel, street drop, or meter, and also at the final step-down transformer of the supply" might not be accurate? Introiboad (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

what is the voltage between ground and neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik dholariya (talk • contribs) 06:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral as earthing?

"Connecting the neutral to the equipment case provides some protection against faults/shorts, but may produce a dangerous voltage on the case if the neutral connection is broken."

Should this not read, "but may produce a dangerous voltage on the housing if the neutral is untied from earth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.234.108 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In some English-speaking countries, "Case" or "Casing" is synonymous with "Housing" - 03 March 2011

Is Neutral a Current-Carrying Conductor?

Hi. My name is Demitrios and I am Apprentice Electrician. After I had a few discussion with my instructors about Neutrals and if it is a Current-Carrying Conductor. I've had gotten mixed information as no one was able to give a straight YES or NO answer.I have installed an outlet for a printer in School and I used two hot(Black & Red) wires plus ground with out a Neutral from a 3-phase panel. According to that Neutral it is not a Current-Carrying Conductor, but if you connect a light fixture you use a Black(Hot), White(Neutral) and Green(Ground)and as we know the white(Neutral) goes back to the source, which than tell us there is current on this conductor or if you will break a neutral and put your self between, you will be belted. Can we say the Neutral is a Current-Carrying Conductor?????????? If YES or No is any Article or Section in the NEC?DemitriosThe Great (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)DemitriosThe Great (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you could provide any insight that would be greatly appreciated

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemitriosThe Great (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology can be different in different countries. What country are you from? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally from Greece but I leave in Boston for many years. The question about the Neutral is for the American standards.DemitriosThe Great (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The National Electrical Code 2008 Handbook (26th ed., 2009) by B. J. McPartland, J. F. McPartland, and F. P. Hartwell, pp. 42–43, explains that the National Electrical Code (NEC) has finally defined the term "neutral", by defining "neutral point" and "neutral conductor". The 2008 NEC in article 100 (the definitions article) gives these definitions:

Neutral Conductor. The conductor connected to the neutral point of a system that is intended to carry current under normal conditions.

Neutral Point. The common point on a wye-connection in a polyphase system or the midpoint on a single-phase, 3-wire system, or the midpoint of a single-phase portion of a three-phase delta system, or a midpoint of a 3-wire, direct-current system.

The last bit about "a midpoint of a 3-wire, direct-current system" is a mystery to me.

Notice I'm referring to two different books, the NEC itself, and the handbook by McPartland, McPartland, & Hartwell, which discusses the NEC. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So according to that you can say then Neutral is Current Carrying Conductor? I always believed Neutral can Carry Current........That's awesome.....DemitriosThe Great (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Thank you so much for the info. You have no idea what was i going through to find an answer for that.DemitriosThe Great (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that yes, neutral is a current carrying conductor. Be careful if you are taking tests, though, because these definitions are new in the latest, 2008, version of the NEC. If you take a test prepared before the 2008 edition came out, there is no telling what the test author would think the right answer is. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do have a test but is not a major test. As long is defined in the NEC, ( Neutral conductors is intended to carry current ), I have a point. Thank you again for the help!!!DemitriosThe Great (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)DemitriosThe Great (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(Perhaps this will be of interest even six months later.) I find all this confusion somewhat curious. Although it's been more more years than I can recall since I have even seen the NEC I thought "neutral" was well-defined. Essentially: in a two-wire (single-phase) circuit both conductors carry current. But one conductor (one side of the circuit) is grounded so that there is no voltage difference (and therefore no current flow) between it and ground. That is the basis of "neutral" — no voltage differential. The result of this is that the potential (voltage difference) on the "hot" side to ground (earth) is no greater than the voltage applied to the circuit. (Apparently there were some problems in early electrical distribution systems where the circuits sometimes "floated" with a potential to ground greater than the circuit was designed to handle.) This grounded — neutral — current-carrying conductor is typically (I believe universally) white; the "hot" conductor is typically black, but also red or blue. In multi-phase circuits, or even center-tapped single-phase, the phases may balance so that there is minimal current flow in the neutral, but it is still deemed a current-carrying conductor. This is distinct from any grounding (earthing) conductors — the green (US), yellow (EU), or combination green-yellow conductors — which are solely protective (safety), and serve to shunt current to ground in the even of malfunction, and normally not current-carrying. (All of this is independent of how black and red are used on DC circuits.) Does that help? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that J. Johnson's post is accurate in terms of unofficial discussions, but the definitions did not actually appear in the NEC until the 2008 edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So the issue is not what, but when? Which is still curious, because I thought all this was defined back in the 1960s. Perhaps I can find an old copy of the NEC. Stay tuned! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think of neutral as being grounded. That's only theoretical. In a real world circuit with loads on it, you'll have voltage drop on both conductors. Say you measure 120V at the panel, a long wire run, and only 110V at the load. That could be 5V drop in the hot wire (to 115V) and 5V lift in the neutral wire (to 5 volts compared to ground). The next neutral wire over may be at different voltage (i.e. 1v or 0v). It might just be a couple volts, but the current behind it is the full current of the circuit seeking a better path back to the service panel... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.219.203 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Shared neutral singnificantly overlaps the topic of thie article and could be usefully merged to improve presentation of the material. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow I think this is wrong

The first line of the article states "Ground or earth in a mains (AC power) electrical wiring system is a conductor that provides a low impedance path to the earth to prevent hazardous voltages from appearing on equipment"

This is not correct. I think this article needs a rewrite. The idea that ground removes hazardous voltage is a very dangerous and incorrect idea. Grounding electrodes are to give neutral points a stable reference NOT to carry current. A 25 ohm grounded connection to earth can only carry 4.8 amps at 120V. This is not even enough to open a circuit breaker!

Here is an idea to how incorrect this article is. http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/GB-HTML/HTML/Grounding-Part-1-of-12~20041005.php

I will try to give it more time when I am not at work. I only created an account because I have never seen anything on Wikipedia this incorrect and I thought I should make it known. Electros (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong. In the UK we normally call it "earth". I agree that varying usage is confusing, and the wording has been clarified slightly. Your 25 ohm grounded connection to earth would not pass the basic UK earth test. Dbfirs 08:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Electros I find the entire article repetitive and confusing. I feel like few people really understand the theory or practise of earthing. I would applaud any effort to improve! 1.146.241.159 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References to wire colors

In the section entitled "Split Phase", the author refers to the wire colors - white, black and red. It might be useful to indicate that those are the colors in the U.S. and Canada. European (including UK) colors are different. I am not suggesting that the reference to the colors be removed - just indicate they apply to the U.S. and Canada. BTW, someone stated that the article is written in "British English" - but given the reference to the wire colors lead me believe he is Canadian. The use of the Canadian spelling doesn't bother me - perhaps because my grandmother was Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA5:2130:8100:200F:7905:855E (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Split phase is not common in the UK where is is more usual to supply two of three phases to premises requiring extra power, and to keep the two phases completely separate consumer-side with conventional colours (brown for both phases, blue neutral and yellow-green stripe earth). Brown, black and grey have been compulsory three-phase colours for the past nine years, replacing the previous red, yellow and blue that confused the Germans (no insult intended). In view of this, perhaps we need to clarify that this paragraph relates to North America. Dbfirs 06:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Extra connections

The article currently reads: "Extra connections between ground and circuit neutral may result in circulating current in the ground path, stray current introduced in the earth or in a structure, and stray voltage"
As I see it, extra connections prevent stray voltages. Can we have a reference if the statement is somehow true? Dbfirs 19:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral does not "return to source"

This wording, so commonly associated with discussions of the neutral wire, is IMO misleading. In an AC circuit the current is constantly reversing and so the imagery of a "return" is misleading. The neutral is connected to ground, which is not the source of the fields that are driving the current in an AC circuit. I am not an expert so will not attempt an edit. This is a very good article on the neutral wire from EE Times:

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1272209# Bluepost22 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is the wording I objected to:

"Neutral is a circuit conductor that normally carries current back to the source."

Bluepost22 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You are technically correct, of course, but the analogy with DC is a useful one. How can we re-phrase it so that it does not mislead? Dbfirs 14:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the analogy to DC useful or are the misconceptions about the neutral wire partially due to the DC analogy? I just don't consider myself expert enough to suggest wording. I have spent some considerable time looking at internet sources and can't find anything as rigorous as the article I cited above. Here is a quote from the article above -- is it authoritative? Is it useful?

"Electrical power flows in the form of current, which must pass through the equipment and then return to the power source. Therefore, it is convenient to think of one wire to the load being the "source" wire and one being the "return" wire. This simple model is appropriate for DC systems but does not work for an AC system because the flow of the power is continually reversing direction with a frequency of 50 or 60 times per second. From the point of view of the equipment or the power source, the source and return wires are constantly being interchanged. In fact, no equipment can tell which wire is which! It is easily demonstrated that the two power wires to any piece of AC equipment can be interchanged without any affect on function. In fact, in Europe, unlike North America, the plug on a piece of equipment can be plugged in either way! (The asymmetrical offset ground pin on the North American 3-wire outlet makes it impossible to reverse the connection of the two power wires). This fact of symmetry seems to be at odds with the distinct labeling of the AC power wires as "hot" and "neutral".

The reason that one of the power wires is named "neutral" is because it is connected directly to the building ground connection at the circuit breaker panel. Therefore it is connected directly to the grounding (third) wire. In essence, then, two of the three wires at the wall receptacle are actually grounded wires, one being used for power flow, and the other connected only to exposed metal parts on the equipment. The power wire that is grounded is called the "neutral" wire because it is not dangerous with respect to exposed metal parts or plumbing. The "hot" wire gets its name because it is dangerous."'

Bluepost22 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The system would work in exactly the same way if the neutral were not connected to ground. The only thing that distinguishes the neutral from the live is this connection to ground at various points in the system (called "protective multiple earthing" in the UK). Your quote is a bit wordy, but accurate except that the UK is still in Europe (for a few more weeks, and permanently geographically) and UK 13A plugs and sockets distinguish between live and neutral. One more distinction: switches always go on the live side, never the neutral. Dbfirs 18:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the statement "Neutral is a circuit conductor that normally carries current back to the source." is the best way to describe the flow of electricity in this case. The reason is that many sources, including ones otherwise viewed as reliable, incorrectly state that "electricity goes to ground" or "electricity always seeks ground", and this has serious safety implications that result in people who read such statements to incorrectly design and use electrical and repair safety-related electrical items. Yes, neutral is connected to ground, but only at one point, and this is somewhat incidental to its main purpose of providing the intended return path for AC electricity from the hot wire (connected to one end of a transformer wiring) to the transformer (specifically the center tap of the transformer wiring).PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In the UK, the protective multiple earthing system requires that neutral is connected to earth at many points (but not at the appliance). I agree that the main purpose of the neutral wire is to complete the circuit to the source, and the connections to earth are incidental and purely for safety purposes. Can we agree on modified phrasing, or do you think we should retain "back to source" as if it were a DC system (though actually electrons flow from the negative wire to the positive). Could we say that neutral completes the circuit back to source? Dbfirs 19:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Suppose that for my house, the neutral in my 3 wire split phase 120/240 was run from the transformer straight down the pole into a ground spike. Would the system still work? If so, then ... Bluepost22 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That is exactly what happens here in the UK at the 500v split-phase transformer near my house, but I get only one half of the output of the centre-tapped transformer (i.e. 250v). I've never tried disconnecting the neutral supply wire, but I suspect that everything would still work because there are deep earth connections at my house and at the transformer 50 metres away, and with a hundred inches of rain each year, the ground is always wet. In a less wet area, this wouldn't work so well. Dbfirs 07:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No, of course not (in the U.S.). About Bluepost asking about "... run from the transformer straight down the pole into a ground spike". In the U.S., there are two hot conductors and a neutral conductor, all of which can carry power under most circumstances. The voltage between the 2 hot conductors are 220V. The voltage between a hot conductor and the neutral conductor is 110V. A power outlet uses the neutral and one of the hot conductors to provide 110V. Half of the outlets use one hot conductor, and the other half of the outlets use the other hot conductor. If, under an unusual situation, only the outlets in one half of the building are in use, where those outlets use the same hot conductor, then that hot conductor carries the same current as the neutral. But if the neutral feed from pole to house only goes through the earth, as I understand what Bluepost is asking about, then the electrical resistance through the earth is too much, and the voltage at the outlets will drop as more appliances are turned on for those aforementioned outlets. A vacuum cleaner, a window air-conditioner, and refrigerator in 3 of the outlets at the same time likely will drop the outlet voltage down to maybe 5 volts, depending on the typical resistance of the earth. At the same time, the outlets using the other hot conductor may have 210 volts, and kill any small appliance that is plugged in to it. This scenario is obviously a disaster. In a different but also uncommon use scenario, where power usage is balanced between half the outlets using one hot conductor, and the other half of the outlets using the other hot conductor, almost no current will flow through the neutral, and all the outlets in the house will have 120V each. Now about the normal ground connection in a correct installation -- When there is no electrical fault, current should never flow through the ground wires. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit as proposed, and I like it better.

So do you agree that the "circuit" in household wiring is really not closed in the sense of an ungrounded DC circuit like a flashlight, but that the ground serves as a very large alternating source/sink for current? This physical approach is probably too esoteric for the article.

Having had a week to think about it, my objection to the word "return" is perhaps too semantic. I think people want to know practical facts about the neutral.

Do you want to include the history of the polarized plug from the article I cited above? They claim that the polarized plug was invented to make the threaded part of the light bulb socket neutral.

How about adding a section on the working of the GFCI, which will include the fact that the neutral carries as much current as the hot leg.

Thanks for the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepost22 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The ground/earth should not serve as a source at all except in my illegal scenario of disconnecting the neutral, or maybe carrying a tiny percentage of the current where there is a low impedance earth and bad insulation in the appliance. In a legal installation, a complete circuit through neutral implies that the current is the same in both live and neutral. In the UK, we mainly use bayonette light fittings, so there is no safety issue because the surrounding metal of the connection is insulated from both live and neutral. We still have polarised plugs for other safety reasons (and for the Edison Screw fittings that we occasionally see). I'd be happy to see something on polarised plugs in the arrticle. Dbfirs 17:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of a neutral grounded at the pole, wouldn't you agree that half the time the transformer is pushing current into the ground, and the other half the transformer is pulling current up out of the ground? The transformer doesn't know we didn't ground the neutral at the circuit breaker box. Not advocating this illegal/unsafe practice, just using it as an example to understand the physics better. Bluepost22 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In a legal installation, that ground current will be very small because there is a much lower impedance path through neutral. In the UK, the neutral must legally be grounded at both the fuse box or circuit breaker and at the transformer, and is often grounded at poles in between, and within a house by bonding to water pipes. If there is a significant current to earth, then modern (RCCB) circuit breakers will trip because they detect that not all of the current is flowing "back" through neutral. Dbfirs 18:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Content fork?

Wikipedia already has an article on Ground (electricity) though no corresponding article on Neutral (electricity). Instead, there is a link for Neutral wire which redirects here (back in 2008 there was an actual article). Is there a reason we do not have a standalone article on Neutral (electricity)? Am I the only one who thinks "Neutral and ground" is a terrible search term? Is there a technical reason we cannot move most or all of this article there? No one has gone ahead and done it yet, so I am assuming there must be. Or else maybe there is just too much resistance to change. "Neutral and ground" is a terrible search term. Surely we can do better than this! A loose necktie (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Why both neutral and ground?

I don't know a ton about electrical systems. I read this article carefully, and I feel it's not super clear why it is important to have both neutral and ground.

This article says ground is to provide a path from any metal parts of an electrical device that could become energized in order to prevent shocks, while neutral is a return of current from normal use. It also explicitly describes the risk of connecting ground and neutral anywhere but the main service panel: if so, during normal operations, the current could return along both paths (neutral and ground).

I think this is useful information (though I wish it could be even more clearly differentiated), but I don't feel qualified to edit this page. Is someone willing to take a shot? dfrankow (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This article has been the effort of scores of Wikipedia's top experts for more than a decade, so of course it's been revised to the point of uselessness. I tried to put a bit in the lead that explains the point before we go off into the weeds, but doubtless the Panel will convene and quickly correct my ravings. Good luck. I suggest buying any electrician's handbook for a more lucid and authoritative explanation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)