A bit of bondage!
- Thread starter dingbat
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
I'd love to.
Might have to wait until tomorrow, as I need to retrieve my copy from the works dart-I-mean-notice board.
Okay, I'll start with a couple of quotes (his punctuation throughout).
From page 2:
"When we refer to 'earthed equipotential bonding' we are, basically talking about completing a circuit (or 'loop') between live and earth."
No we're not. What he (almost) describes is creating an earth fault, although he uses the incorrect term 'live' when he should have said 'line'. The clue to the purpose of equipotential bonding is in its name - to keep all conductive parts as close as possible to the same potential in the event of such a fault.
He then goes on to describe the creation of a short between the positive terminal of a car battery and the car body, which is, of course, a short circuit fault, but concludes: "'Earthed equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection of supply', uses exactly the same simple principle!" No Dave, that's just a circuit..
More;
"By connecting extraneous-conductive-parts with the earth terminal of the installation via 'supplementary bonding' conductors, we effectively create a part of a 'loop'."
We do not connect extraneous conductive parts to the main earthing terminal via supplementary protective bonding conductors - he should examine the diagram on page 32 of the regs and use correct terminology.
This is a recurring feature, the use of incorrect terminology, along with lots of non-sequiturs, which sound plausible to a layman and reassuring to a confused electrician, but don't actually explain what is happening. He is also obsessed, it seems, with the notion of a frayed flex coming into contact with metalwork and creating paths to earth from every such piece of metalwork, which sounds very much like local-authority bonding practice; the creation of extraneous conductive parts where non existed beforehand. Thus creating potential hazards where non existed before.
Anyway, I'm tired of typing now. If I get a chance I'll scan some stuff in tomorrow.
From page 2:
"When we refer to 'earthed equipotential bonding' we are, basically talking about completing a circuit (or 'loop') between live and earth."
No we're not. What he (almost) describes is creating an earth fault, although he uses the incorrect term 'live' when he should have said 'line'. The clue to the purpose of equipotential bonding is in its name - to keep all conductive parts as close as possible to the same potential in the event of such a fault.
He then goes on to describe the creation of a short between the positive terminal of a car battery and the car body, which is, of course, a short circuit fault, but concludes: "'Earthed equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection of supply', uses exactly the same simple principle!" No Dave, that's just a circuit..
More;
"By connecting extraneous-conductive-parts with the earth terminal of the installation via 'supplementary bonding' conductors, we effectively create a part of a 'loop'."
We do not connect extraneous conductive parts to the main earthing terminal via supplementary protective bonding conductors - he should examine the diagram on page 32 of the regs and use correct terminology.
This is a recurring feature, the use of incorrect terminology, along with lots of non-sequiturs, which sound plausible to a layman and reassuring to a confused electrician, but don't actually explain what is happening. He is also obsessed, it seems, with the notion of a frayed flex coming into contact with metalwork and creating paths to earth from every such piece of metalwork, which sounds very much like local-authority bonding practice; the creation of extraneous conductive parts where non existed beforehand. Thus creating potential hazards where non existed before.
Anyway, I'm tired of typing now. If I get a chance I'll scan some stuff in tomorrow.
M
MrsBanal
His 'punctuation', I find, is really quite 'annoying', too.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 641
- Reaction score
- 75
- Country
It can be quite difficult to make "technical arguments" against something that's Not Even Wrong.
Seriously dude, that nonsense is awful. It sounds like he doesn't even have a grasp of basic electrical theory, never mind the nuances of bonding.
Seriously dude, that nonsense is awful. It sounds like he doesn't even have a grasp of basic electrical theory, never mind the nuances of bonding.
i wonder if the paper used in the printing of this book is soft and absorbent (like andrex)?
It may have some useful function if it is
It may have some useful function if it is
I've had another email:
Hi again Mr. Ban Sheds,
"into the human body (capacitance)..." The human body is first filled to its' 'capacity'.
"through the human body to earth..." Then the human body has a 'resistance' to the flow of current to earth.
If for example you were stood on a block of polystyrene when coming into direct contact with a live conductor, the human body will simply fill to capacity with earth leakage current.
If on the other hand you were for example sat in a puddle of urine when coming into direct contact with a live conductor, the human body will have a resistance to earth and therefore current will pass through the body.
Therefore, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood what I was saying.
Some other points that I think you ought to know:
Advanced copies of both of these books have been passed to;
The BSI (British Standards Institute)
The IET (Institute of Engineering and Technology)
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)
The NIC EIC (National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting)
The ECA (Electrical Contractors Association)
The City and Guild Institute
The HSE (Health and Safety Executive)
The Department of Communities (Govt.)
The NHS (National Health Service)
The Fire Brigade
The Police
No negative comment has come back from any of the above!
Secondly;
As far as I know these two books are the only books on the subject of electrical installation currently in print that do not contain any form of 'legal disclaimer', whereas IET publications including BS 7671 and the On Site Guide certainly do.
Therefore whether you follow their advice or not the responsibility for your installations, is yours and yours alone!
In short, the Labour Party persuaded us all to do things quickly and on the cheap; no earth cables, 4.0mm cable protected by 32amp breakers, spurring 1.5 off a ring, radial components on 'loop' fire alarm systems etc. But the Government, the BSI and the IET have now left individual electricians to take the legal responsibility for their own actions for the lifetime of these installations!
One last thing:
I am the proud owner of a set of City and Guilds qualifications that all have something in common apart from the fact that they all bare name, they also include the phrase "no higher grade can be achieved in this subject".
Regards,
David Cockburn.
Hi again Mr. Ban Sheds,
"into the human body (capacitance)..." The human body is first filled to its' 'capacity'.
"through the human body to earth..." Then the human body has a 'resistance' to the flow of current to earth.
If for example you were stood on a block of polystyrene when coming into direct contact with a live conductor, the human body will simply fill to capacity with earth leakage current.
If on the other hand you were for example sat in a puddle of urine when coming into direct contact with a live conductor, the human body will have a resistance to earth and therefore current will pass through the body.
Therefore, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood what I was saying.
Some other points that I think you ought to know:
Advanced copies of both of these books have been passed to;
The BSI (British Standards Institute)
The IET (Institute of Engineering and Technology)
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)
The NIC EIC (National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting)
The ECA (Electrical Contractors Association)
The City and Guild Institute
The HSE (Health and Safety Executive)
The Department of Communities (Govt.)
The NHS (National Health Service)
The Fire Brigade
The Police
No negative comment has come back from any of the above!
Secondly;
As far as I know these two books are the only books on the subject of electrical installation currently in print that do not contain any form of 'legal disclaimer', whereas IET publications including BS 7671 and the On Site Guide certainly do.
Therefore whether you follow their advice or not the responsibility for your installations, is yours and yours alone!
In short, the Labour Party persuaded us all to do things quickly and on the cheap; no earth cables, 4.0mm cable protected by 32amp breakers, spurring 1.5 off a ring, radial components on 'loop' fire alarm systems etc. But the Government, the BSI and the IET have now left individual electricians to take the legal responsibility for their own actions for the lifetime of these installations!
One last thing:
I am the proud owner of a set of City and Guilds qualifications that all have something in common apart from the fact that they all bare name, they also include the phrase "no higher grade can be achieved in this subject".
Regards,
David Cockburn.
I would imagine they would have to be retrieved from the khazi for this to ever happen.
Trouble is, it's the blind leading the bind out there and as electricians almost universally misunderstand electricity and earthing and bonding in particular, it's no wonder nobody has seen fit to comment.
I wonder if Paul Cooke of the IEE has read it?
Well i'm glad that's nice and clear then.
Totally. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying!
Surely if you were going to write a book like this you would have someone check the work/proof read it?
But, why would you when:
By the way, I just checked with our City & Guilds administrator and she doesn't recognise that form of wording...
...or the spelling of the word 'bare' in this context.
In normal circumstances that would happen, however in this instance the publisher is one of those 'pay for everything yourself' types where the publisher neither checks what is printed or cares if the book sells at all.
All technical books contain legal disclaimers, because if not, the author and publisher would most likely be held liable for any damages caused when someone (mis)uses the information provided. Even books which are carefully checked by many people can still contain mistakes (just look at BS7671 for a start).
In this case, as the information contained is blatantly wrong, it's only a matter of time ...
This book is an example of vanity publishing at it's worst, because a 10 page effort does not make a book, the author has a poor understanding of the subject and clearly didn't bother to have the information checked before publication.
Getting the thing into print was probably the only consideration.
is getting 'any old tat' published going to make money?
I don't know how much it costs to produce and the likely return?
If its a no brainer money maker i intend to get something published myself. Perhaps something like 'building hadron colliders with yogurt pots'
I have absolutely no idea how to do this, but it seems as though this is not a problem....
I don't know how much it costs to produce and the likely return?
If its a no brainer money maker i intend to get something published myself. Perhaps something like 'building hadron colliders with yogurt pots'
I have absolutely no idea how to do this, but it seems as though this is not a problem....
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
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- dextrous
- Plumbing and Central Heating
