Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

[JohnW2]

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.

If the consensus agrees with you, then this is surely simply another case of the injudicious choice of words by those who wrote the regs - we surely all 'know' that what they meant was "nearby" - not the least because one would struggle to produce a foolproof and unambiguous definition of circuits which were "next to" one another, wouldn't one?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also:

Not only are you ...

...stretching the meaning of every regulation by considering every possible interpretation of what the author actually could have meant when he wrote something but...

...also using every possible, however unlikely, definition of the words he actually used...

...to suit what you would like the outcome to be.




In this case - adjacent - should I wish to buy the adjacent property, I feel confident in saying that no one will think I mean the house three doors away.

 

[JohnW2]

Not only are you ... ...stretching the meaning of every regulation by considering every possible interpretation of what the author actually could have meant when he wrote something but... ...also using every possible, however unlikely, definition of the words he actually used... to suit what you would like the outcome to be.

You're talking as if the regulations are crystal clear, which they aren't .....

In this particular case [543.7.2.201(ii)(c)], I feel sure that my interpretation is the 'common sense' interpretation (not "what I want it to be") of what a regulation which (yet again!) is not written in perfect (and clear) English is 'trying to say'. If you disagree, could you tell us what you understand by "an adjacent circuit"? Do the two circuits' OPDs have to be physically next to one another in the DB, do the cables of the two circuits have to follow exactly the same route, and be close together (which would rarely happen), or what?

If your answer is that you "don't know", does that mean that you don't feel that we can ever use 543.7.2.201(ii)(c), because we don't understand what it is saying?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

What does 514 have to do with it?

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

No you didn't, you asked :
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?
So I answered the question you asked. Don't try and make it my fault that you didn't ask the question you wanted an answer to.

543.7 does not talk about colours.

Indeed it doesn't, and had you asked me what colours I'd use to comply with 543.7 then I'd have replied that 543.7 doesn't specify what colours are to be used - but that other regulations do. I wouldn't have said that as other regs require a specific colour, then 543.7.1 says that a specific colour is needed.

If not, I'm confused about how you think the rules work.

Clearly, but that's not my problem.

I thought your position was that if 543.7 doesn't explicitly state a requirement it does not exist.

Not at all. It is you who claims that 543.7.1 says things that it does not. I would not have a problem if you got your facts right - eg by saying "543.7.x.y says "something", and 543.a.b.c then requires "something" to be "something else". That is not the same as saying 543.7.1 says "something else".

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.

I have never said that there aren't simple questions without a simple answer - it is you who has wrongly assumed that that was my position.

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.

Now that is clear for all to see - you are trying to make out that if I choose not to give an answer, then the only reason is that I can't answer. I've already said that I could give a simple answer, but I won't because it's none of your damn business; just as you would refuse to answer if I asked (for example) where you work. I know you wouldn't answer that, and I don't have a problem with anyone not answering that in public - but I wouldn't put 2 and 2 together, get 5, and accuse you (or anyone else) of not being able to answer it.

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?

No, as pointed out - I'm not answering because it's none of your damn business. That was quite clear, and I think everyone but you would have seen that.

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.

But I haven't said that other regs don't apply - merely pointed out that you've been putting things into 543.7.1 that aren't actually in 543.7.1.
I, and I believe some of the others, are of the opinion that your interpretation requires combining 543.7.1 with another regulation that doesn't apply (but you appear to believe does), and another regulation that I (and I believe others) believe says something different to what you appear to think it says.

But since you have stated that you're not going to discuss it any further, then it doesn't really matter. I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and it's clear I am not alone in that.

In this particular case [543.7.2.201(ii)(c)], I feel sure that my interpretation is the 'common sense' interpretation (not "what I want it to be") of what a regulation which (yet again!) is not written in perfect (and clear) English is 'trying to say'. If you disagree, could you tell us what you understand by "an adjacent circuit"? Do the two circuits' OPDs have to be physically next to one another in the DB, do the cables of the two circuits have to follow exactly the same route, and be close together (which would rarely happen), or what?

Trying to "get into the mind" of how and why it was written, my thoughts would be ...
If you have two radials heading off in different directions, then it'll probably be as easy to just make separate rings back to the DB. It only makes sense to link two radials at the ends if that's easier than running two extra conductors back to the DB - and in practical terms that means the radials end up in "generally the same vicinity".

As examples :
If you DB is in the middle of a long room, and you run a radial each way to the ends, then the logical path for any linking conductor will likely go past the DB anyway - so just make two rings. But if the radials ran opposite ways round a room, and finished up either side of (say) a doorway, then it may be easier to string one short conductor from one circuit to the other.
In the latter case, why not make an RFC ? Well as pointed out, 2 radials have a higher potential loading than a single RFC, and it also splits both the leakage current (potentially across two RCBOs rather than one) and split the load that will lose power if a circuit trips.

If your answer is that you "don't know", does that mean that you don't feel that we can ever use 543.7.2.201(ii)(c), because we don't understand what it is saying?

That may be the case !

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you disagree, could you tell us what you understand by "an adjacent circuit"? Do the two circuits' OPDs have to be physically next to one another in the DB, do the cables of the two circuits have to follow exactly the same route, and be close together (which would rarely happen), or what?

I would not say it refers to the DB.
It refers to sockets in adjacent areas and the adjacent circuit. An adjacent area is quite an indefinite requirement.
I would describe an adjacent circuit as one running in the same tray or suchlike.

If your answer is that you "don't know", does that mean that you don't feel that we can ever use 543.7.2.201(ii)(c), because we don't understand what it is saying?

Yes, I would be happier if it were not there.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I agree with Simon's answer but it does beg the question of why it was felt necessary to write .201(ii)(c) at all.

 

[sparkwright]

I don't claim to have read all 17 pages of this, but in the case of two radials, isn't it a strong possibility the radials could have lots of spurs off it, spurs from spurs, and making it hard to determine the actual end?

 

[JohnW2]

It refers to sockets in adjacent areas and the adjacent circuit. An adjacent area is quite an indefinite requirement. I would describe an adjacent circuit as one running in the same tray or suchlike.

I think you're just illustrating how vague it is. What about in a domestic or small commercial environment, in which cables are unlikely to be running in "trays or suchlike". Would two circuits with cables "in the same wall" count, or what? There clearly in no electrical reason for the two circuits to be 'next to' one another, nor necessarily all that close, particularly given that the main alternative being offered is to run a new additional CPC all the way back to the DB, how far away that might be [to satisfy ...201(ii)(a) ].

If your answer is that you "don't know", does that mean that you don't feel that we can ever use 543.7.2.201(ii)(c), because we don't understand what it is saying?

Yes, I would be happier if it were not there.

Are you saying that you would prefer not to be able make a radial circuit HIE by connecting its CPC to another similar circuit? If so, that seems a bit 'harsh', since it's really only a way which (in the right circumstances) one could more conveniently achieve essentially the same as in ...2.201(ii)(a) [or ......(b)] - or would you be happier if they were not there, either?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't claim to have read all 17 pages of this, but in the case of two radials, isn't it a strong possibility the radials could have lots of spurs off it, spurs from spurs, and making it hard to determine the actual end?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you saying that you would prefer not to be able make a radial circuit HIE by connecting its CPC to another similar circuit?

Not bothered about that.

I think the whole section is the cause of all the confusion.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't claim to have read all 17 pages of this, but in the case of two radials, isn't it a strong possibility the radials could have lots of spurs off it, spurs from spurs, and making it hard to determine the actual end?

Indeed. Unlike what they've done in 543.7.2.201(a), to say that spurs from ring finals have to be separately provided for to become HIE, they seem to have forgotten to do the same for branching radials. What they have written in ....201(ii)(a) and ....(c) only seems applicable for a non-branching radial. If it does branch, then not all sockets on the circuit would have complete CPC redundancy (hence HIE), but it wouldn't be immediately obvious which did and which did not!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with Simon's answer but it does beg the question of why it was felt necessary to write .201(ii)(c) at all.

As you know, I essentially agree with you - but about the whole of 543.7.2, not just that one bit. We all have our ideas (which differ) about what they were trying to achieve with 543.7.2 but I think live would be much simpler if they had simply put the extra bits as additional options to 543.7.1.203, rather than creating 543.7.2. It would then have been clear that if one of the additional options (per current 543.7.2) were satisfied, that there would then be no requirement to satisfy ...203(i), (ii) or (iii) [or (iv) or (v) !!].

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

Yes - I know all of that.

Simon appears to operate on a different principle, which is why I was asking him about colours.

So you are still saying that the words "Two individual protective conductors, each complying with the requirements of Section 543" includes the word "ring" or something with the same meaning ?

If you cannot highlight the word "ring" in that text then regulation 543.7.1.203(iii) does not require the PEs to be rings. There may be another eg which does - but it's not 543.7.1.203(iii)

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - I know all of that. ... Simon appears to operate on a different principle, which is why I was asking him about colours.

Fair enough. Whilst I largely agree with Simon's bottom line (at least, in terms of common sense), his recent arguments all seem to have relied on there being a difference between "cpc" and "PE" (BS7671 abbreviation definitions!) - a difference which, as you know, I have never believed to exist (in the context of a circuit) - and nor, I believe do you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What does 514 have to do with it?

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

No you didn't, you asked :
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?

543.7.1.203 The wiring of every final circuit and distribution circuit intended to supply one or more items of equipment, such that the total protective conductor current is likely to exceed 10mA, shall have a high integrity protective connection complying with one or more of the following:-

(i) A single protective conductor ...

(ii) A single copper protective conductor ...

(iii) Two individual protective conductors, ...

What does 514 have to do with it?

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

No you didn't,

Yes

I

did

543.7 does not talk about colours.

Indeed it doesn't, and had you asked me what colours I'd use to comply with 543.7 then I'd have replied that 543.7 doesn't specify what colours are to be used - but that other regulations do. I wouldn't have said that as other regs require a specific colour, then 543.7.1 says that a specific colour is needed.

So 543.7 doesn't specify what colours are to be used - but other regulations do.

You claimed that because the word "ring" does not appear in "Two individual protective conductors, each complying with the requirements of Section 543" the protective conductors don't have to be rings, even though other regulations say they do.

I have never said that there aren't simple questions without a simple answer - it is you who has wrongly assumed that that was my position.

You asked "simple" questions which you kept insisting had simple answers, even though they did not, and whenever I tried to get you to see that not all "simple" questions have simple answers you accused me of avoidance and diversion etc. Why did you do that?

Now that is clear for all to see - you are trying to make out that if I choose not to give an answer, then the only reason is that I can't answer. I've already said that I could give a simple answer, but I won't because it's none of your damn business;

So - just to clarify, you could give a truthful answer to the question "When did you stop beating your wife?", and it would be a simple answer to that simple question, i.e. it would be a date in the past, or a time interval between then and now, but you are choosing not to?

I'm not answering because it's none of your damn business. That was quite clear, and I think everyone but you would have seen that.

And you think that people believe you?

But I haven't said that other regs don't apply - merely pointed out that you've been putting things into 543.7.1 that aren't actually in 543.7.1.
I, and I believe some of the others, are of the opinion that your interpretation requires combining 543.7.1 with another regulation that doesn't apply

543.7.1.203(iii) requires two individual CPCs.

543.7.1.203(iii) requires that each of those two individual CPCs comply with Section 543.

543.2.9 requires that the CPCs of ring circuits be rings themselves.

Therefore the two individual CPCs required by 543.7.1.203(iii) have to be two individual rings.

I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and it's clear I am not alone in that.

Which other regulations do you believe do apply to each of the two individual CPCs referred to in 543.7.1.203(iii)?

Or, if it is easier, which other regulations applying to CPCs do you believe do not apply to each of the two individual CPCs referred to in 543.7.1.203(iii)?