Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

Do you agree, or not, that the below would be compliant as a high integrity earthing system?


  • Total voters
    23
I may have misunderstood your post by thinking you were meaning that this arrangement would also comply for a ring circuit.

OK, so you are saying that path a-A and path b-B-BB-AA do not constitute separate PEs ?
It would be better to say a-A and b-B are the separate CPCs which are joined by AA-BB for the purpose of HIE.
It would have to be of 4mm² protected or 10mm², ? wouldn't it?

Why do you persist in using PE and CPC differently?
 
Sponsored Links
I may have misunderstood your post by thinking you were meaning that this arrangement would also comply for a ring circuit.

OK, so you are saying that path a-A and path b-B-BB-AA do not constitute separate PEs ?
It would be better to say a-A and b-B are the separate CPCs which are joined by AA-BB for the purpose of HIE.
But how would that comply with what the regs say ? We both know it complies with what is definitely intended, but since the regs don't talk about "connecting cpcs together for the purposes of HIE", we need to be looking at how this topology fits in with what the regs say.

It would have to be of 4mm² protected or 10mm², ? wouldn't it?
Would it ?
BAS seemed to think that it would comply when I asked earlier - on the basis that it's "doubling up" and complying with 543.7.1.203(iii)'s requirement for "two individual PEs, each complying with ...". It's specifically what 543.7.2.201(ii)(c) says you can do. Other than the "4mm/10mm" options, IIRC nowhere does 543 mention the CSA of any additional connections, though it would "make sense" to me to use the same CSA as any existing conductors.

So I wanted to determine exactly how people think it complies.

Why do you persist in using PE and CPC differently?
Because the regs use them differently, and we keep being told that we should look at "what the regs actually say" ?
And the definitions are different - while there is a huge amount of overlap, there are connections which are one but not the other.
 
Other than the "4mm/10mm" options, IIRC nowhere does 543 mention the CSA of any additional connections, though it would "make sense" to me to use the same CSA as any existing conductors.
Indeed, that seems to make total sense. 543.1 does, of course, specify the minimum CSA for any protective conductor - but, assuming the 'existing conductors' comply with that, to have the additional conductor of the same (or greater) CSA as that would seem to make total sense. To underline that, 543.7.2.201(ii)(c) already requires that the two circuits have cps of the same CSA, so it again makes total sense that the conductor connecting them (for HIE) should also have that same CSA.

Kind Regards, John
 
Let’s take the scenario where you’ve installed a circuit with HIE – ring or radial, it doesn’t matter, and you’ve done it with whatever number/size/shape/etc CPC(s) you think is/are needed, that doesn’t matter either – the only assumption I’m making is that you want to comply with BS 7671, and you’re happy that what you do complies.

So the question is:

For your CPC(s), what colour sleeving or other markers will you use to identify it/them, throughout its/their length and/or at the terminations, and why?
Where it is required to be labelled/identified, they would be green/yellow since whilst 514 does not specify a colour for "circuit protective conductor", I can't think of a situation (at least in anything I do) where the "circuit protective conductor" is not also a "protective conductor" where 514 specifies green/yellow.

Before you go off on a tangent, no that is not saying that cpc==PE, just that for any circuits I am likely to be working on, the cpc will also be a PE and the regs require those to be green/yellow - where it's a separate conductor.
So looking at the last diagram I posted, the cpc a-A is also a PE - therefore any markings would be green/yellow. cpc b-B is part of PE b-B-BB-A and therefore needs to be green/yellow.

So there’s that one I’d like you to answer
which I have done
, and the one “When did you stop beating your wife?
Which I won't be since you know full well it was never intended to get an answer. Turning your argument (not all simple questions have a simple answer) around, not all simple questions don't have a simple answer - just because you believe it doesn't, doesn't make that so.
Mind you, your using it to prove a point could be a bit of an own goal. It could well have a very simple answer (which will be different for different people) - which I'll decline to give not because of any reluctance to address the question, but because it's no damn business of yours (or anyone else here) what my martial status is, or if I am married, what me and my wife get up to behind closed doors.
I'm rather surprised you didn't seem to realise that this question doesn't actually prove what you claim. It is not actually intended to show the absence of a simple answer - rather that some questions cannot be answered without self incrimination. Eg, if someone answered "last month" (a simple answer) then that could be taken to imply that until last month they had been beating their wife.


It is interesting that you've not addressed my question of how the case of two radials with their ends linked complies with the regs. You've said that you believe it does, I am interested in which specific regulations cover it - and how. I've given my interpretation of how I believe the regs can be interpreted to cover it, what's yours ?
 
Sponsored Links
Where it is required to be labelled/identified, they would be green/yellow since whilst 514 does not specify a colour for "circuit protective conductor", I can't think of a situation (at least in anything I do) where the "circuit protective conductor" is not also a "protective conductor" where 514 specifies green/yellow.
What does 514 have to do with it?

I asked you about the protective connection for a HIE situation - 543.7.

543.7 does not talk about colours. It doesn't even mention 514, so why do you think that the CPC(s) of your circuit need to be identified with G/Y? What principle are you applying there?



Before you go off on a tangent, no that is not saying that cpc==PE, just that for any circuits I am likely to be working on, the cpc will also be a PE
Does 543.7 say that?

If not, I'm confused about how you think the rules work. I thought your position was that if 543.7 doesn't explicitly state a requirement it does not exist.


, and the one “When did you stop beating your wife?
Which I won't be since you know full well it was never intended to get an answer.
Well, I did offer you the alternative of saying that you did now get it, and that you accept that not all "simple" questions have simple answers.

Are you prepared to say that? Or are you going to try and persist with your accusations of evasion and subject changing because I tried to get you to see that?


Turning your argument (not all simple questions have a simple answer) around, not all simple questions don't have a simple answer
And you can show where I said that all simple questions don't have a simple answer, can you?


Mind you, your using it to prove a point could be a bit of an own goal. It could well have a very simple answer (which will be different for different people)
So give the answer which applies to you. Say what the date was when you stopped beating your wife. Or say that you do now accept that not all "simple" questions do have "simple" answers, and that therefore your claims that I was being evasive etc were groundless.


which I'll decline to give not because of any reluctance to address the question, but because it's no damn business of yours (or anyone else here) what my martial status is, or if I am married, what me and my wife get up to behind closed doors.
Don't be ridiculous - nobody here knows who you really are, where you live etc.

If you think you can try to make out that you could answer the question “When did you stop beating your wife?” with a date but don't want to because of those concerns, or because you don't want to incriminate yourself, and that people will accept that, then you run the very real risk of making yourself look like an utter fool.


I'm rather surprised you didn't seem to realise that this question doesn't actually prove what you claim. It is not actually intended to show the absence of a simple answer - rather that some questions cannot be answered without self incrimination. Eg, if someone answered "last month" (a simple answer) then that could be taken to imply that until last month they had been beating their wife.
So are you telling us that the only reason you won't answer the question is that you don't want to incriminate yourself? That were there some way in which you could be guaranteed immunity from self-incrimination you could give us the date when you stopped beating her?


It is interesting that you've not addressed my question of how the case of two radials with their ends linked complies with the regs. You've said that you believe it does, I am interested in which specific regulations cover it - and how. I've given my interpretation of how I believe the regs can be interpreted to cover it, what's yours ?
I haven't read it, and I have no intention of doing so until you show that you are prepared to behave, to stop accusing me of evasion etc when I try to get you to see that your "simple" world is actually simplistic, and to clear up the question of whether you do or do not accept that CPCs which comply with the requirements in 543.7 also have to comply with the requirements for CPCs laid down elsewhere in the regulations, even though those other requirements are not explicitly stated in 543.7.

Oh - and another bit of advice - if you think you can turn that into some kind of admission from me that I cannot deal with the wall of truths with which you are assailing me and that I have therefore given up and run away, nobody is going to believe that either, and you will have found another way to run the very real risk of making yourself look like an utter fool.
 
I may have misunderstood your post by thinking you were meaning that this arrangement would also comply for a ring circuit.
OK, so you are saying that path a-A and path b-B-BB-AA do not constitute separate PEs ?
It would be better to say a-A and b-B are the separate CPCs which are joined by AA-BB for the purpose of HIE.
But how would that comply with what the regs say ? We both know it complies with what is definitely intended, but since the regs don't talk about "connecting cpcs together for the purposes of HIE", we need to be looking at how this topology fits in with what the regs say.
It would comply, surely, because of 543.7.2.201(ii)(c)

It would have to be of 4mm² protected or 10mm², ? wouldn't it?
Would it ?
I cannot see how it would not.

BAS seemed to think that it would comply when I asked earlier - on the basis that it's "doubling up" and complying with 543.7.1.203(iii)'s requirement for "two individual PEs, each complying with ...". It's specifically what 543.7.2.201(ii)(c) says you can do.
Ok?

Other than the "4mm/10mm" options, IIRC nowhere does 543 mention the CSA of any additional connections, though it would "make sense" to me to use the same CSA as any existing conductors.
You, surely, cannot have a length of 1.5mm² running on its own.


Why do you persist in using PE and CPC differently?
Because the regs use them differently,
No they don't. They use them for the intended purpose.
We are talking about CPCs which are one type of protective conductor.

And the definitions are different - while there is a huge amount of overlap, there are connections which are one but not the other.
I have explained previously and it is quite obvious to me.
CPCs, Bonding conductors, Earthing conductors have different definitions but all are all protective conductors.
 
Last edited:
543.7 does not talk about colours. It doesn't even mention 514, so why do you think that the CPC(s) of your circuit need to be identified with G/Y? What principle are you applying there?
514.3 applies to any conductors, and therefore does not have to be mentioned in 543.7 to be applicable. It clearly requires all conductors to be identified (with the small number of exceptions in 514.6, none of which apply to the situation we are discussing) - so, if not G/Y, what colour (compliant with Table 51) would you propose using for identifying the CPCs.

Kind Regards, John
 
It would comply, surely, because of 543.7.2.201(ii)(c)
It would comply (just as would a ring final with a single CPC ring) were it not for the (I believe probably 'unintended') blanket requirement in the preamble of 543.7.2.201 for compliance with (all of) 543.7.1.

With which part of 543.7.1.203 do you believe the arrangement would comply?

Kind Regards, John
 
It would comply, surely, because of 543.7.2.201(ii)(c)
It would comply (just as would a ring final with a single CPC ring) were it not for the (I believe probably 'unintended') blanket requirement in the preamble of 543.7.2.201 for compliance with (all of) 543.7.1.
Not if you have complied with 543.7.1

With which part of 543.7.1.203 do you believe the arrangement would comply?
Whichever part with which you have chosen to comply.


I think this is getting too confusing.

It is unclear whether individual posts and questions relate to:
Standard Radials, Standard Rings, Radials with extra cpc, Rings with extra cpc, Radials with increased csa cpcs. Rings with increased csa cpcs or -
the Original poll question.
 
It would comply (just as would a ring final with a single CPC ring) were it not for the (I believe probably 'unintended') blanket requirement in the preamble of 543.7.2.201 for compliance with (all of) 543.7.1.
Not if you have complied with 543.7.1
With which part of 543.7.1.203 do you believe the arrangement would comply?
Whichever part with which you have chosen to comply.
Indeed, but I think that's Simon's point. Since I don't think that joining the CPCs of two radial circuits to make them HIE falls within the scope of 543.7.1.203(iii). That only really leaves (i) or (ii) (i.e. large CSA CPCs) - but I think that they would only be satisfied if one increased the CSAs of all of the CPCs of both radial circuits to 10mm² (or 4mm² protected), not just the cable/wire linking them - which I do not believe is what most people thing that 543.7.2.210(c) is trying/intending to say. Indeed, if one did increase the radial circuits' CSAs there would be no need to link the CPCs of the two circuits to achieve HIE - so, again, 543.7.2.210(c) would become redundant/unnecessary.

As I keep saying, although it's certainly not what the pre-amble of 543.7.2.201 "actually says", I strongly suspect that satisfying one of the parts of 543.7.2.201 was intended as an alternative to having to satisfy any of 543.7.1.203.
I think this is getting too confusing. ... It is unclear whether individual posts and questions relate to: Standard Radials, Standard Rings, Radials with extra cpc, Rings with extra cpc, Radials with increased csa cpcs. Rings with increased csa cpcs or - the Original poll question.
It has got confused at times, but, in terms of this post, I think it's very clear as to what I am talking about - making two radials HIE via 543.7.2.201(c).

Kind Regards, John
Edit: Typo corrected
 
Last edited:
but, in terms of this post, I think it's very clear as to what I am talking about - making two radials HIE via 543.7.2.201(c).
OK.
As Bas has said, the regulations apply to all installations so could be designed properly with whatever csa conductors were required.
It may not have been intended to apply to a wire strung from one side to the other in your home office.

Apart from the electrical parts of .201(c), what are 'adjacent areas' and what is 'the adjacent circuit'?


You said earlier that you thought .201 had been added to an existing 543.7.
Perhaps it should not have been and should be removed or written far more clearly.
I am of the belief that it is .201 which has caused all the confusion.
 
OK. [sorry about typo - now corrected].As Bas has said, the regulations apply to all installations so could be designed properly with whatever csa conductors were required. It may not have been intended to apply to a wire strung from one side to the other in your home office.
Maybe, but that's not really an issue for me. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the regs apply to any installation.
Apart from the electrical parts of .201(c), what are 'adjacent areas' and what is 'the adjacent circuit'?
They surely intend just the common sense meaning (what they "actually say") - i.e. "nearby"?
You said earlier that you thought .201 had been added to an existing 543.7.
That's quite possible, but I don't think that I've actually said that in so many words. What I have said, several times, is that I strongly suspect that the intention (not achieved by what they wrote "actually says") is that, for ring and radial sockets circuits, compliance with ...2.201 is an alternative to having to comply with any parts of ...1.203 . [/quote]
Perhaps it should not have been and should be removed or written far more clearly. I am of the belief that it is .201 which has caused all the confusion.
In terms of how it has been written, I certainly agree. If my view about the intent is correct, the simpler (and much clearer) solution would probably have been not to have a 543.7.2 at all but, instead, to include the options in ...2.201(i) and ...2.201(ii) as additional options in ...1.203.

Kind Regards, John
 
Maybe, but that's not really an issue for me. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the regs apply to any installation.
Yes, of course and as you said yourself, more likely new circuits.

They surely intend just the common sense meaning (what they "actually say") - i.e. "nearby"?
Adjacent means 'next to or adjoining'; not nearby, hence my query.
 
They surely intend just the common sense meaning (what they "actually say") - i.e. "nearby"?
Adjacent means 'next to or adjoining'; not nearby, hence my query
I think you are quibbling. The Oxford Dictionary gives synonyms which include "close to", "near to", "close by" etc ... plenty close enough to "nearby" for me!

Kind Regards, John
 
I'm quibbling?

They surely intend just the common sense meaning (what they "actually say") - i.e. "nearby"?
Adjacent means 'next to or adjoining'; not nearby, hence my query.


On further consideration, I think this is the fundamental problem.

There is no 'common sense meaning' to be applied when words are clear.

I should not have to 'translate' everything I read.



In view of your more recent post, I would assume that the somewhat dubious synonyms are some further examples of evolution.
Does anyone else think adjacent means nearby - as in somewhere in the vicinity rather than next to.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top