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 !