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
JohnW2 said:
Iggifer said:
JohnW2 said:
That was my first reaction - but that's what most sockets I buy today have - but it sounded as if DS was talking about something 'special'!
Click to expand...
OOI what sockets do you buy? I only really ever use 3 brands, and they all have one L+N and 2 Earth (of which, I only ever use one)
Click to expand...
Oh sorry - I didn't read, think or write carefully enough! What I should have said was that most sockets I buy have 2 earth terminals (since that's what's relevant to this discussion) - but, as you say, they only have one L and one N. It's years since I saw one of these offered for sale (although I still have a few tucked away):
Untitled

Untitled

However, although they're nice to install, I'm not so sure about them safety-wise - at least in a ring final. With a ring final, if one of the L's or N's come's adrift, the user will be none the wiser (everything will still 'work' - unless the 'adrift conductor' touches something it shouldn't!), but the circuit's cable could get overloaded.

Kind Regards, John
Click to expand...

I fail to see the point you are trying to make ? A wire
Iggifer said:
JohnW2 said:
However, although they're nice to install, I'm not so sure about them safety-wise - at least in a ring final. With a ring final, if one of the L's or N's come's adrift, the user will be none the wiser (everything will still 'work' - unless the 'adrift conductor' touches something it shouldn't!), but the circuit's cable could get overloaded
Click to expand...
That's how I feel about ring finals regardless of how they're terminated in the socket outlets
Click to expand...
JohnW2 said:
Iggifer said:
JohnW2 said:
However, although they're nice to install, I'm not so sure about them safety-wise - at least in a ring final. With a ring final, if one of the L's or N's come's adrift, the user will be none the wiser (everything will still 'work' - unless the 'adrift conductor' touches something it shouldn't!), but the circuit's cable could get overloaded
Click to expand...
That's how I feel about ring finals regardless of how they're terminated in the socket outlets
Click to expand...
Yes, I realise that is one of the downsides of ring finals. However, if one is going to have them, then those sockets with 2xLand 2xN terminals must increase the chances of a break in the L or N ring going unnoticed - so (unless there are compensating factors, which there might be) they must be, statistically speaking, 'less safe' than those with only one L and one N terminal (particularly if the two conductors are twisted together :) ).

Having said that, I seriously doubt whether a cable with a CCC of 20A would come to any harm, let alone cause a fire, if it were carrying 32A continuously (which is not going to happen in practice, anyway) - and if, as is more common, the cable has a CCC of 27A, then an 'overload' of 32A clearly isn't going to result in any catastrophes.

Kind Regards, John
Click to expand...

Where did you get your'e statistics form JW2? As i have only ever found one manufacturer using the "six terminal method".

DS
 
Sponsored Links
deadshort said:
Where did you get your'e statistics form JW2? As i have only ever found one manufacturer using the "six terminal method".
Click to expand...
And whoever manufactured the ones I have (per piccie posted) didn't want to own up to it - because they bear no indication of who made them!

I obviously don't have any statistics, and I've said nothing which was based on statistics. My comments were merely based on obvious facts. If in a ring final, one of the Ls or Ns comes out of a terminal in a "6 terminal" socket (and doesn't touch anything it shouldn't!), there is essentially a zero probability that the householder will become aware that anything has is wrong. If an L or N comes out of a standard ('4 terminal') socket then there is at least some non-zero probability (probably not all that low) that both conductors will come out, so that the householder will become aware that one socket has 'stopped working'. Since "non-zero" is greater than "zero", there is, statistically speaking, a greater probability that they will become aware that something is wrong if a break in the L or N ring arises if there is only one L and one N terminal.

Kind Regards, John.
 
I must be living in a parallel universe ……:rolleyes: is anyone else in John's world?:LOL:

Kind regards,

DS
 
deadshort said:
I must be living in a parallel universe ……:rolleyes: is anyone else in John's world?:LOL:It's
Click to expand...
I don't really understand your problem. I would call it common sense, but it would also be taught in "Probability 101" or "Statistics 101", so presumably you didn't do either of those courses.

If one thing has an essentially zero probability and something else has a finite (i.e. non-zero) probability, then the latter is more likely to happen than the former. Simples.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
JohnW2 said:
deadshort said:
I must be living in a parallel universe ……:rolleyes: is anyone else in John's world?:LOL:It's
Click to expand...
I don't really understand your problem. I would call it common sense, but it would also be taught in "Probability 101" or "Statistics 101", so presumably you didn't do either of those courses.

If one thing has an essentially zero probability and something else has a finite (i.e. non-zero) probability, then the latter is more likely to happen than the former. Simples.

Kind Regards, John
Click to expand...

Room 101, we like that :D ………:sneaky::sneaky:
 
I only spotted this by chance, as basically I have stopped reading what you write on this subject. Amusing as it is to read things like this:

JohnW2 said:
I think that even BAS accepts that the radial with its CPC converted into a (one) ring is compliant as HIE, so (whatever the regulations "actually say") it makes no sense that the identical situation with a ring final would be unacceptable as HIE.
Click to expand...
which confirm that you are so unable to think logically that you actually think it makes sense for HIE to require the increased integrity of a different cpc topology for one type of circuit but not another, and in fact that it is nonsense to require it in one sort when required in another.

Anyway - this is not an attempt to discuss it with you, or to change your mind - that would be pretty pointless as you've already made it quite clear that you could not care less if I am right.


JohnW2 said:
However, in this particular case BAS's attempt to exercise "blind adherence" with wht he feels the regulations "actually say" would actually result in decreased hazard, since there would be four protective conductors (which he would call "two CPCs") connected to each socket in an HIE ring final circuit!
Click to expand...
I would be obliged if, when discussing it with others, you would not keep on making out that I am drawing some bizarre distinction between "protective conductor" and "circuit protective conductor".

I have already told you that that is not the case, other people have told you it is not the case, and I and other people have pointed out that that is actually what you have been doing.


And a quick whizz through looking to see if you were misrepresenting me anywhere else turned up this (but it was only a quick look through, so maybe I've missed even more):

JohnW2 said:
Do you mean 6 'earth' terminals? (even BAS only needs 4!)
Click to expand...
No, not 4, 2.

But then you know that.



It seems that as well as ignoring what is written in the Regulations you are now ignoring what I write. Presumably you care equally little what that actually is.


I really think it would be best if you would confine yourself to expressing your opinions and discussing with other people what those are and what they write, rather than introducing incorrect assertions of what I have written.
 
Last edited:
ban-all-sheds said:
JohnW2 said:
However, in this particular case BAS's attempt to exercise "blind adherence" with wht he feels the regulations "actually say" would actually result in decreased hazard, since there would be four protective conductors (which he would call "two CPCs") connected to each socket in an HIE ring final circuit!
Click to expand...
I would be obliged if, when discussing it with others, you would not keep on making out that I am drawing some bizarre distinction between "protective conductor" and "circuit protective conductor".
Click to expand...
No problem - I'll call them anything you like, if you can suggest what. We know that you regard two rings as "two CPCs". I would hope that we can also agree that, if one has two such ring CPCs, there will be four "somethings" to connect to each socket (presumably two into each of two terminals). What would you like me to call those "somethings", if not "protective conductors"? I can't call them "CPCs" without causing confusion, since you say there are only two of them, but I am talking of things of which there are four.

What would you like me to call them?

Kind Regards, John
 
If I may:

You could call them wires as, in the diagram, there are five wires making each of the two circuit protective conductors (or just protective conductors) just as there must be five wires making the line conductor and the neutral conductor.
 
EFLImpudence said:
If I may: You could call them wires as, in the diagram, there are five wires making each of the two circuit protective conductors (or just protective conductors) just as there must be five wires making the line conductor and the neutral conductor.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just getting paranoid! Knowing BAS's sensitivities, I did consider that, but, the the electrical context, "wire" is just sloppy/colloquial terminology for what electricians would call conductors, so I though he might criticise that, too. In electrician-speak, I was certainly talking about 4 conductors needing to be connected to (presumably two) earth terminals at each socket. I could have just have called them "conductors", but would probably then have been criticised for imprecision (since they could be L, N or E conductors) - so I decided to call them 'protective conductors' (which is what they are) and, as you have seen, get criticised for that, too!

The phrase "can't win" comes to mind!

Kind Regards, John
 
ban-all-sheds said:
All I'm asking is that you stop making false claims about what I call them.
Click to expand...
All I said ("claimed") was that you would call two separate rings "two CPCs". If that is now a 'false claim', does that mean that you have changed your mind about that?

Kind Regards, John
 
JohnW2 said:
All I said ("claimed") was that you would call two separate rings "two CPCs". If that is now a 'false claim', does that mean that you have changed your mind about that?
Click to expand...
Well - maybe I was putting too much store by my memory of this:

JohnW2 said:
As I wrote yesterday, I think one of the confusions is resulting from the fact that BAS seemingly perceives a difference between "Protective Conductor" and "Circuit Protective Conductor", accepting that the former represents "A path" back to the CU (hence there are two), but regarding the latter ('CPC') as referring to the entire ring of protective conductors (with joints) - in which case there is only one. Where he got those different 'definitions' from, I haven't got a clue.
Click to expand...

If the rings in question are cpcs then I would call two separate ones "two cpcs". Or even "two individual cpcs"
 
D

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

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

RF Lighting
High integrity earthing and ring final circuits.
4 5 6
Replies
82
Views
31K
ban-all-sheds
ban-all-sheds
R
Circuits with high protective conductor currents
Replies
3
Views
2K
Adam_151
A
F
Locating a broken earth in a ring final circuit?
Replies
3
Views
4K
festa
F
E
High integrity earthing (!) on radial circuits
Replies
3
Views
2K
RF Lighting
RF Lighting
C
radial Final circuit definition
Replies
4
Views
3K
OwainDIYer
O
Back
Top