A bit of bondage!

[ricicle]

TROLL

 

[david911cockburn]

EEBADS is designed to protect members of the public from electric shock with 'low voltage' installations.
As far as 'high voltage' installations are concerned insulation and seperation must be the primary means of protection, I don't imagin that earthing can be expected to do any more than protect cabling from over-current. Coming into parallel contact with an earthed conductor would presumably be very dangerous when a fault occurs in a high voltage system.
As for being earthed when going near one? I think I would feel much safer if I were insulated from all that was around me.

 

[david911cockburn]

You wouldn't earth the steelwork of a building?
This you will have to explain, I could do with a laugh.

This arguement that has been going on about earthing for a hundred years was put to bed (for low voltage installations) in 1989 when the EAWR became the Law!

 

[ricicle]

TROLL

 

[RF Lighting]

Let's start at the beginning with the EAWR:
The EAWR only talks in terms of 'conductors' and 'circuit conductors', it tells us that "all conductors (other than 'circuit conductors') must be connected to earth.

Right at the beginning it is, and straight away youre wrong.
The electricity at work regulations 1989 does NOT say that.

BS 7671 : 1991

No such document, and even if there was, why are you quoting from TWENTY year old documents?

simply expands upon the EAWR, it subdivides 'conductors' into two catergories; Exposed-conductive-parts and Extraneous-conductive-parts. It then gives us a set of 'loop impedence' figures and we are told that if we stay inside the parameters of the 'loop impedence' values, any fault currents that occur will be unable to reach such a magnitude for a sufficient duration of time to cause death or serious injury.
This theory is known as 'Earthed equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection of supply', it requires both 'circuit protective conductors' to supply an earth to fixed and portable electrical appliances (that may have exposed-conductive-parts) and 'supplementary bonding conductors' to supply an earth to 'conductors' that do not form part of the electrical installation (extraneous-conductive-parts). Therefore all 'conductors' that may be simultaneously accessible are connected to earth via the same earthing system, no two points of which should have a resistance between them that will allow a potential difference of greater than about 50v if a fault directly to earth should occur, because no matter which 'conductor' (exposed or extraneous) has become hazardous live having come into contact with a 'circuit conductor', we have supplied a low resistance earth path which will allow enough cuurent to flow to the mass of the earth quickly enough for the over-current protective device to disconnect the circuit within a specified time.
At the time the fault occurs the entire earthing system will become live for a moment but the fault current will be on its' way to the mass of the earth, therefore anybody who is in contact with an earthed 'conductor' will only be in parallel or 'indirect contact'. Anybody who is in simultaneous contact with two 'conductors' will only receive a shock of less than about 50v before the supply is automatically disconnected.

None of that is relevant. It is all quoted from a document which is out of date.

Compare the above to leaving 'conductors' not connected to earth:
If an un-earthed radiator comes into contact with a damaged 'circuit conductor', the radiator will simply become and remain 'hazardous live', anybody who touches the radiator (or any of the radiators if the water in the system is old) will become a series, high resistance path to earth and unless the shock exceeds 30mA (which is unlikely indoors) there is no reason why the supply should be automatically disconnected!

Just try and get this in to your THICK skull. You do not install supplementary bonding for the purposes of automatic disconnection. That is earthing. Bonding provides a completely different function.

Summary:
Both 'circuit protective conductors' and 'supplementary bonding conductors' return 'earth leakage current' and 'earth fault current' to the mass of the earth, as long as 'loop impedence' readings are within given values, neither earth leakage current nor earth fault current will be allowed reach a magnitude or duration as to cause serious injury or death.

No they don't. Supplementary bonding conductors do NOT ruturn any currents to anywhere. All they do is ensure that in the event of a fault all metalwork remains at the same potential.

PS
The problem with the 16th Edition is that some definitions were taken straight out of the 15th Edition without being updated:
eg. Indirect contact - should have read;
Contact of persons or livestock with earthed conductive parts which have become live under fault conditions.

The problem with the 16th edition is that is is not a valid satndard, and hasn't been for some time now.

PPS
In between the EAWR 1989 & BS 7671 : 1991, a book was written called "The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 An Open Learning Course 1990" by an outfit calling themselves THELA. This book is written in four sections, the first of which goes to great lengths to make sure the reader understands the difference between a 'conductor' and a 'circuit conductor'. Unfortunatey the other sections of the book appear to have been written by people who hadn't read the first section, as they go on to talk in terms of "electrical conductors" (a term which isn't used in Regulation 8 of the EAWR), as a result this book confused the living daylights out of everybody before the 16th Edition was even published.

Did you write it?

 

[RF Lighting]

EEBADS is designed to protect members of the public from electric shock with 'low voltage' installations.
As far as 'high voltage' installations are concerned insulation and seperation must be the primary means of protection, I don't imagin that earthing can be expected to do any more than protect cabling from over-current. Coming into parallel contact with an earthed conductor would presumably be very dangerous when a fault occurs in a high voltage system.
As for being earthed when going near one? I think I would feel much safer if I were insulated from all that was around me.

What the hell are you banging on about now? You are making your self look more and more stupid with every single word you write.

Go have a look in the CURRENT edition of BS7671 and see what it says about EEBADS.

You can't find it?

That's because EEBADS is not recognised by BS7671 any more. Until you start to actually learn even a little bit about the subject you think you know so much about, how can you ever expect anyone to ever take you seriously?

 

[RF Lighting]

You wouldn't earth the steelwork of a building?
This you will have to explain, I could do with a laugh.

This arguement that has been going on about earthing for a hundred years was put to bed (for low voltage installations) in 1989 when the EAWR became the Law!

No you do not earth structural steelwork, you BOND it.

There is no argument about earthing from anyone except you who is too arrogant to go and actually learn what the difference between earthing and bonding is, and where and when we carry out either or both.

Keep posting, and I will shoot you down every single time. You have no idea what you are talking about. I do, and so do plenty of other people on here.

 

[Spark123]

You need to protectively bond structural steelwork if it is earthed, not that Mr Windup knows that.

 

[dingbat]

Little did I think that, when I posted up my early warning about the dangers of Mr Cockburn's warped ideas in [self]published form, that I would give birth to a proud and loud 15-pager.

Who would have though that so much top flight entertainment would have been created from such humble beginnings?

I would love to see some of DC's bathroom installations.

Any photos, David?

 

[dingbat]

Let's start at the beginning with the EAWR:

But, why?

In between the EAWR 1989 & BS 7671 : 1991, a book was written called "The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 An Open Learning Course 1990" ... This book is written in four sections, the first of which goes to great lengths to make sure the reader understands the difference between a 'conductor' and a 'circuit conductor'.

I'd hardly call a couple of definitions 'great lengths'

Unfortunatey the other sections of the book appear to have been written by people who hadn't read the first section, as they go on to talk in terms of "electrical conductors" (a term which isn't used in [the] EAWR but is implicit in the definitions, if you actually read them), as a result this book confused the living daylights out of everybody before the 16th Edition was even published.

It didn't, but that is entirely irrelevant.

I think you'll find that it's only you who is confused.

And now you're really rambling.

 

[securespark]

I've done some more digging.

This phrase is normally appended to long course certificates for courses in which no higher grade than Pass is awarded; that is, when they do not award Merit or Distinction grades.

In other words, it simply means he passed - it does NOT indicate that he did any better than just pass.

It seems Mr C is economical with the truth as well as the number of pages in his books - or that he doesn't really grasp the English language.

Indeed:

On one of my C&G Records Of Achievement from 1990, it says of a PASS*,

No higher grade is possible in this component.

 

[david911cockburn]

Hello Mr. Lighting,
You evidently haven't been reading this forum lately.
The EAWR Regulation 8 and the appropriate definitions are quoted word for word on page 11 of this thread. All you have seen here is a summary; and I'm afraid that is exactly what they say.
The Sixteenth Edition of the Wiring Regs. were issued in 1991 and are still relevant today because they make perfect sense, unlike the legally disclaimed amendments to it and the legally disclaimed 17th Edition.
If you would like to be specific about the function of supplementary bonding conductors and circuit protective conductors, you will find that the discussion has already been won and lost within this thread. At the same time you will find out that bonding is simply a part of the earthing system.
EEBADS is no longer referred to because the IET and others are now trying to cover up the mistakes they have made.

Therefore I am afraid you have not 'shot me down' and I very much doubt that you ever will.

 

[ricicle]

TROLL

 

[david911cockburn]

Ricey,

You are giving the impression to the people who have respected your opinions in the past that you are in reality little more than an irresponsible, ignorant, irritating little boy!
Is that really what you want people to think of you?

 

[ricicle]

Prove to me you are not a troll by responding to my previous request which was -

Describe in one paragraph the purpose of earthing and the purpose of bonding. No waffle, no quoting irrelevent documents, just your understanding of it.