@nsaspook - I just stumbled upon a Mr. H. Ward Silver.

He wrote this (emphasis mine): The Myth of the RF Ground I'd appreciate your views, you're clearly very experienced and knowledgeable so I'd like to learn from you on this.

He says the same thing I do about equal potential bonding. IMO it's another, no kidding, repeat the obvious, article for those in the RF field, with another clickbait title.

The solution is to stop looking for the elusive “zero voltage connection” at RF. The Earth is not a magic drain into which all of our
unwanted RF can be poured via a wire. An electrically long connection to the Earth is useless at RF and often causes RF-related
problems. Let’s go back to what the problem really is: we have places in the shack where high RF voltage exists and RF voltage differences that cause RF current to flow. These problems can be addressed by bonding.
Bonding sounds heavy-duty (and expensive) but all it really consists of is connecting equipment enclosures together with short conductors so they have the same voltage.
This is partially taken care of by the low impedance connection provided by shields of coaxial cables between equipment.

 

Sure enough good call. Do it right, it pays off.

 

I work in the area of product safety, and the earthing within a product can be considered as PROTECTIVE earthing, whose purpose is to protect against electric shock in the event of a fault within the product – or as FUNCTIONAL earthing, which is a part/circuit with a connection to earth (rather like 0V), but does not provide a safety function.

The PROTECTIVE earthing is tested to withstand a high fault current, sufficient to cause an overcurrent protective device to operate, preventing the earthed part from becoming live.

The terms earth/ground earthing/grounding are interchangeable.

Personally I don’t like the term FUNCTIONAL earthing, because to the uninitiated its function might be considered to provide a safety function.