Would you please contact that guy one more time, and ask him to confirm that his opinion is authoritative, and that the email(s) he sent you represent an official amendment to BS 7671?
On it's own it doesn't. It's only as a pair that it works.
Is it headed towards an increasingly ridiculous argument from you?
It is acceptable, and I have never denied that.
Can you not read? ....
Senior Engineer Technical Regulations at IET said:
We all knew that you were going to say that, regardless of what response I got from the IET, but I suspect that many/most are becoming increasingly less interested in that ("stubborn law students' debating society") argument. Are you perhaps one of those who for decades obeyed what the instruction "Keep away from children" actually said ??
If you're interested I can explain what makes me think that.
And I have asserted otherwise, where, exactly?
Indeed it does not, and I have never said that it does.
That, as you must know by now, is where most of us (now including 'the man at the IET') disagree. Whatever definitions one might wish to use for "CPC" or "protective" conductor" one cares to use or discuss, the fact is that that there are two individual paths to earth - and most of us (including 'the man at the IET') believe that is what matters (and, yes, we all KNOW that that is not what the regulations "actually say").
Yes, I can read.
I would not have said that if their response had been in accordance with what the regulations actually say.
Well - we know that you have already said the following:
I'm not sure where that comes from, nor what its relevance is to the issue of what a para-legal formal British Standard actually says.
How about the one on p25 of the Wiring Regulations?
Which is what I've been saying all along.
So, now you also think that a ring circuit is made up of more than one cable.
You're being silly. You know that no individual has the authority to amend BS7671. If you want to ask him such a daft question, feel free to do so yourself. If you want his name and e-mail address, just PM me.
Not shouting - just attempting to ensure that my responses embedded within the quote of BAS's post didn't get overlooked!JW2, shoutingwhat next ?
Oh my goodness! Even if it is not what the second paragraph of 543.7.1.203(iii) "actually says", it is surely apparent that it means "Where the two individual protective conductors are incorporated in the SAME multicore cable...", isn't it?
I don't believe that second paragraph of (iii) would ever be relevant to ring circuits (unless for one of BAS's ones with two CPC rings). I think it's only relevant to radials when one uses 4-core cable (say 3C+E) to achieve two separate CPCs for HIE.
As I said last time you made that comment, I personally think that they more-or-less have, but worded it very badly. I believe that 543.7.2.201(i) is tryiing to say that 'standard' ring finals are deemed to to satisfy 543.7.1.203(iii) (on the basis of two independent paths to earth), and therefore only have to additionally satisfy ...204 (separate terminals) and ...205 (instructions at CU).
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
