Poll - Ring final circuits with high integrity earthing

[SimonH2]

Yes

I

did

Temper, temper - shouting will not change the fact that you did not ask about HIE. You asked the question of what colour I would use for the cpcs. You did not mention that it was specifically in relation to HIE or 543.7, so I answered what you wrote. Would you have preferred that I went looking for things you didn't write to add to the question ?

Don't forget, you have been wittering on about "read what they actually say" - then complain when someone does 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?

Do you have a problem comprehending that statement ? It would appear that you do.
But yes, I could give a simple answer, but that private matter is none of your damn business. Do you have a problem with personal information not being any of your business, or of anyone else here ?

Like I say, I'm pretty certain you would have much the same response to someone asking you personal information. Care to tell us where you work for example ? I assume the answer is that you could tell us, but you aren't going to - and I don't have a problem with that. Do you want to get back to a matter of opinions about the subject, or carry on with this irrelevant sideline you introduced ?

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.

And therein lies the fundamental problem.

543.7.1.203(iii) does not refer to cpc, it refers to PE. PE is not the same as cpc. 3.2.9 refers to cpc, and therefore does not apply to the two circuits referred to in 543.7.1.203(iii).
It's there in the regs for you to read - you do keep saying to read what they say don't you ?


Without trawing back through the thread to check, wasn't it you who wrote something along the lines of a lot of clever people wrote the regs, is there any reason to doubt that they meant what they wrote and what they wrote reflects what they mean ? I would have to assume that there's a reason they refer to cpc and PE where they do - or are you now saying they are wrong to do so ?

But here is my interpretation, and another diagram :

To my reading, 543.7.2.201(i) specifically states that A (singular) ring PE is acceptable.
I don't think that there is any doubt that that statement on it's own appears to be saying that other than the use of separate terminations, a standard RFC with a ring cpc already complies.
For the purposes of 543.7.1.203(iii), a-A forms one PE (which is also part of the ring cpc), AA-BB-B-b forms another PE (which is also part of the ring cpc).
These together make a standard RFC comply with very minor modifications.

So I believe the argument comes down to : can the ring cpc also be those two separate PEs at the same time ? I do not believe that is incompatible with the definition of PE "A conductor used for some measure of protection against electric shock and intended for connecting together any of the following parts ..."

You can of course argue that you cannot consider part of the ring in isolation like that. Well that's fine, and I believe that is your position.

But, in this image :
View attachment 83247
does that argument not also mean that you do not have "two individual protective conductors".

So short of complying with 543.7.1.203(i) or (ii) you need an extra PE over and above that. That contradicts what you've stated in the past to be your belief - that linking the ends of radials like that complies.

 

[JohnW2]

If anyone is still reading this thread ... I've asked before, but not got any responses. We now have 6 'No' votes. We know that one is from EFLI, and presume that one is from BAS. If any of the other four come from people other than BAS, I would be very interested to hear, either 'publicly' or via PM, what the people concerned feel IS required to make a ring final circuit qualify as "HIE".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Temper, temper - shouting will not change the fact that you did not ask about HIE.

Yes I did.

Let’s take the scenario where you’ve installed a circuit with HIE – ring or radial, it doesn’t matter, and you’ve done it with whatever number/size/shape/etc CPC(s) you think is/are needed, that doesn’t matter either – the only assumption I’m making is that you want to comply with BS 7671, and you’re happy that what you do complies.


So the question is:


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?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But yes, I could give a simple answer, but that private matter is none of your damn business. Do you have a problem with personal information not being any of your business, or of anyone else here ?

No, I don't have a problem with that, I just wanted you to confirm that should you not feel that way that you could give us the date when you stopped beating your wife.

It is now clear that the reason you may not have grasped the point I was trying to make is that for you the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a simple one with a simple answer, albeit one which you wish to keep private, because at some time you did start, and then later stop, beating her.

But are you prepared to accept that I was trying to make the point I kept saying I was, or are you still determined to accuse me of avoiding and diverting etc?

And therein lies the fundamental problem.

For you, yes.

543.7.1.203(iii) does not refer to cpc,

Yes it does.

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:-
.
.
(iii) Two individual protective conductors, ...

it refers to PE

No it doesn't.

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:-
.
.
(iii) Two individual protective conductors, ...


".. every circuit .. shall have a .. protective conductor ..". So that makes it a circuit protective conductor.

cf:

".. every table .. shall have 4 legs ..". That will make them table legs.

".. roofs .. shall be covered with tiles ..". That will make them roof tiles.

".. drains .. shall be fitted with covers ..". That will make them drain covers.

 

[SimonH2]

Just to be clear then, your entire argument relies on altering what "the regs actually say" (where they use the term "protective conductor") by saying they actually mean "circuit protective conductor" because the word circuit appears "somewhere" in the reg ?

So put another way, your argument relies on the very clever people who got together and wrote the regs not actually writing down what they meant - because surely if they intended it to be read circuit protective conductor they would have written circuit protective conductor and not protective conductor ? So the very clever people who (IIRC) you previously stated might be expected to have written what they meant and meant what they wrote "got it wrong" ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just to be clear then, your entire argument relies on altering what "the regs actually say" (where they use the term "protective conductor") by saying they actually mean "circuit protective conductor" because the word circuit appears "somewhere" in the reg ?

I haven't altered anything - I've just highlighted some words to help you get to grips with basic English comprehension at the level most children can manage.

"Wine shall be served in glasses." That will make them wine glasses, then.

"Traffic shall be controlled by means of lights.". That will make them traffic lights, then.

"Cutlery shall be stored in trays." That will make them cutlery trays, then.

It's the way English works - are you going to deny that?

".. every circuit .. shall have a .. protective conductor .." That will make them circuit protective conductors, then.

So put another way, your argument relies on the very clever people who got together and wrote the regs not actually writing down what they meant - because surely if they intended it to be read circuit protective conductor they would have written circuit protective conductor and not protective conductor ?

They wrote "".. every circuit .. shall have a .. protective conductor ..". That will make them circuit protective conductors

So the very clever people who (IIRC) you previously stated might be expected to have written what they meant and meant what they wrote "got it wrong" ?

No - you are the one who is getting it wrong.

I am sure that JohnW2 does believe his arguments. IMO he is wrong, and demonstrably so, but I believe he is sincere.

It would be interesting to have a new poll to see how many people think that you are sincere, and that you believe in what you are arguing, and how many people think you aren't and don't.

But not interesting enough for me to bother - I am now sure that either you are arguing things which you do not believe, just for the sake of it, or you are genuinely incapable of making worthwhile contributions. Either way, from my POV, your involvement in this topic is at an end.

Goodbye.

Oh - and another bit of advice - if you think you can turn that into some kind of admission from me that I cannot deal with the wall of truths with which you are assailing me and that I have therefore given up and run away, nobody is going to believe that either, and you will have found another way to run the very real risk of making yourself look like an utter fool.

 

[SimonH2]

So having failed to demonstrate that the phrase "circuit protective conductor" appears in 543.7.1 the argument comes down to "I'm right and I don't care what the regs actually say" then.
Unless of course someone can find "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:- ... (iii) Two individual protective conductors" in the definitions and it says that this has the same meaning as "circuit protective conductor".

If you assume that the clever people writing the regs actually meant "protective conductor" then all ambiguity disappears (other than what constitutes "adjacent"). If you assume the actually meant "circuit protective conductor" but sloppily wrote "protective conductor" instead then the whole of 543.7.2.201 is completely redundant sine it cannot be complied with in any way that isn't already covered by 543.7.1. In particular, 543.7.2.201 (ii)(a) offers "the protective conductor being connected as a ring" - which then becomes "one" PE and doesn't comply with 543.7.1(iii) - but everyone (including BAS) seems to agree that this topology does meet it.

So did the people writing the regs really intend to put "circuit protective conductor" and were just "sloppy" in their writing ? Or do we assume that they actually did mean "protective conductor" ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Which of these is a Bus Conductor and why?

 

[SimonH2]

"Wine shall be served in glasses." That will make them wine glasses, then.

No it makes them glasses. If you said "wine will be served in wine glasses" then that would make them wine glasses.
Examples of well known "wine glasses"

"Traffic shall be controlled by means of lights.". That will make them traffic lights, then.

No, it will make them lights. If you wrote that traffic will be controlled by traffic lights then they'd be traffic lights.
Examples of well known "traffic lights"

"Cutlery shall be stored in trays." That will make them cutlery trays, then.

No, once again, a tray is a tray and can be used to store cutlery amongst other things. A tray is a tray, a cutlery tray is a cutlery tray.
Examples of well known cutlery trays :

See there's a theme running through there. A "wine glass" is a subset of (drinking) "glasses". So a "wine glass" is a glass, but a glass isn't necessarily a wine glass. If someone (for example) serves wine in a beer glass (not unknown at parties when the available drinking vessels get in short supply) then the glass doesn't magically stop being a beer glass and turn into a wine glass.

For "wine glass" is a category of vessels noted for their primary function of being used for serving wine. Being a wine glass doesn't prevent it being used to serve other beverages, nor does using one for a different beverage stop it being a wine glass. Similarly, there is nothing to stop other types of glass (or other vessel) being used to serve wine - and using (for example) a tea cup to serve wine does not stop that tea cup being a tea cup, nor make it a wine glass.

I don't think it's me that has the problem comprehending the English language.

 

[SimonH2]

Which of these is a Bus Conductor and why?

View attachment 83395

A more interesting question would be ...
If the chap with the white bow tie and baton gets onto a bus, does that make him a bus conductor ? By BAS's logic, if a conductor is on a bus, then he's a bus conductor.
In a similar vein, if the chap on the left goes to a music concert/recital, does that make him a music conductor ?
What if someone has two jobs - conducting on a bus, and conducting an orchetra ? What is he then ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

A more interesting question would be ...

Not sure interesting is the right word.

If the chap with the white bow tie and baton gets onto a bus, does that make him a bus conductor ? By BAS's logic, if a conductor is on a bus, then he's a bus conductor.

No, because when he is on a bus he is not conducting.
Were there an orchestra on the bus he would be a music conductor on a bus. His conducting is not related to the bus.

In a similar vein, if the chap on the left goes to a music concert/recital, does that make him a music conductor ?

Not if he were not conducting the orchestra.
If he were conducting the orchestra then he would be a Music conductor, wouldn't he?.

What if someone has two jobs - conducting on a bus, and conducting an orchetra ? What is he then ?

He would be a Bus conductor when his conducting related to the bus and a Music conductor when his conducting related to the music.

A protective conductor (in your example) which is protecting the circuit is by definition a Circuit protective conductor.
If this protective conductor is not protecting a circuit then what is it protecting (assuming it is not the Earthing conductor, which in this situation it won't be, nor a Bonding conductor which it could also be)?

The glasses in your example would be classed as '{content} glasses' if they all looked the same as do the protective conductors.

 

[SimonH2]

A protective conductor (in your example) which is protecting the circuit is by definition a Circuit protective conductor.
If this protective conductor is not protecting a circuit then what is it protecting (assuming it is not the Earthing conductor, which in this situation it won't be, nor a Bonding conductor which it could also be)?

Ah now it gets interesting.
Why cannot a conductor be more than one thing at a time ? The conductor taking tickets and controlling the orchestra for a mobile recital

Taking the "linked radials" example. I think we all agree that the conductor from the MET to the end of each radial is a cpc for the purposes of protection from faults - or more specifically, from shocks arising from those faults.
I would argue that at the same time it is a PE for the purposes of Sec 543.7 which is there for the purposes of protection from shock as a result of the high leakage current.
Two functions, protecting against different risks, but in practical terms inseparable on the one piece of wire.

The link between the two radials is not the CPC for either circuit*, but it is part of the PEs required for 543.7

I cannot think of any reason why the very clever people who wrote these regulations - and bear in mind that there have been at least 2 opportunities to revise them since they first appeared - would have used the term "protective conductor" had they actually meant it to be read as "circuit protective conductor".

So either we assume they were/are idiots, they actually did mean cpc when they used PE, and the whole of 543.7.2 is meaningless. If we do assume that, yes I would be wrong, as would the vast majority of those in the business (including "qualified" people at the IET), and I believe BAS would also be wrong when he said that 543.7.2.201(ii)(a)(c) would comply.

Or if we assume they actually knew what they were talking about, and used the term PE for a reason (making some conductors both a cpc and a PE at the same time), then 543.2.9 doesn't apply, and there is no problem.

* Yes we both know that in practical terms, any fault current will go down both legs - but that's "incidental" to the reason for the extra conductor. I liken this to the "occasional misunderstandings" about equipotential bonding - bonding the water and gas pipes to the MET isn't there to earth those pipes, but since the MET is (in most cases) earthed then the bonding connections have the incidental property of earthing those pipes.

There are analogies elsewhere. One I know about would be rights of way. If you look at an Ordnance Survey map you will find some red lines (dashed, long dashed, dashes and plusses, plusses) that mark various routes like footpaths and bridleways. In many cases, the same "track on the ground" also appears on the council's "list of streets" (IIRC more accurately the list of roads maintainable at public expense) and thus with presumed rights for traffic (this "being on the list of streets" is almost certainly the right that allows you to drive along the road to your house and something a conveyancer will check when you buy a property).
Some people look at the map, see (for example) a bridleway marking and assume (incorrectly) that it doesn't have any vehicular rights. In this case, the same track on the ground may be both a footpath/bridleway/whatever AND a highway at the same time - each property providing certain rights to certain classes of users.

 

[EFLImpudence]

A protective conductor (in your example) which is protecting the circuit is by definition a Circuit protective conductor.
If this protective conductor is not protecting a circuit then what is it protecting (assuming it is not the Earthing conductor, which in this situation it won't be, nor a Bonding conductor which it could also be)?

Ah now it gets interesting.
Why cannot a conductor be more than one thing at a time ?

It can (as I indicated re: bonding) but it is not. What else is there?

Taking the "linked radials" example. I think we all agree that the conductor from the MET to the end of each radial is a cpc for the purposes of protection from faults - or more specifically, from shocks arising from those faults.

Yes.

I would argue that at the same time it is a PE for the purposes of Sec 543.7 which is there for the purposes of protection from shock as a result of the high leakage current.

Right, then (I do not mean correct) WHAT is a PE? I presume you mean it is a Protective Earth.

Two functions, protecting against different risks, but in practical terms inseparable on the one piece of wire.

Ok.

The link between the two radials is not the CPC for either circuit*, but it is part of the PEs required for 543.7

Which 543.7.1.203(i)(ii) states must be 'a single protective conductor' or (iii)'two individual protective conductors'.

I cannot think of any reason why the very clever people who wrote these regulations - and bear in mind that there have been at least 2 opportunities to revise them since they first appeared - would have used the term "protective conductor" had they actually meant it to be read as "circuit protective conductor".

I think they thought you may realise that a "protective conductor" of a circuit would be a ...

So either we assume they were/are idiots, they actually did mean cpc when they used PE,

WHERE DO THEY EVER USE THE TERM "PE"?

Or if we assume they actually knew what they were talking about, and used the term PE for a reason (making some conductors both a cpc and a PE at the same time), then 543.2.9 doesn't apply, and there is no problem.

They don't use the term "PE". They use "Protective Conductor" which are the last two words of what?

A CPC is a Protective earth.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

WHAT is a PE? I presume you mean it is a Protective Earth.

Has he not looked at p41?

 

[SimonH2]

Right, then (I do not mean correct) WHAT is a PE? I presume you mean it is a Protective Earth.

No, I mean it is a protective conductor, as used in 543.7 and defined in section 2

WHERE DO THEY EVER USE THE TERM "PE"?

In the definition in section 2. JohnW2 has raised this oddity before - the abbreviation for "Circuit Protective Conductor" is cpc, the abbreviation for "Protective Conductor" is PE Would you be happier if instead of using the abbreviations in Section 2 I copied and pasted protective conductor every time ? Would that also apply to the use of other abbreviations in this forum - EFLI, Ze, Zs, R1, etc, etc, etc (it would make for some very long winded sentences ).

They don't use the term "PE". They use "Protective Conductor" which are the last two words of what?

"wine" is the last word of "wine glass" - that doesn't make every glass a wine glass.
"tipper lorry" are the last words of "articulated tipper lorry", that doesn't make every tipper lorry articulated.

Perhaps someone should email the IET and ask why there are two terms, and why each is used as it is in 543 ?

If you accept that cpc and PE are not the same thing, then 543.7 all makes sense and there's no problem. If you don't accept that, then 543.7.2 makes no sense at all.