A bit of bondage!

Status
Not open for further replies.
David

To be blunt it annoys me ( as an electronics engineer with 40 years experience that has included working on marine and industrial control systems and life critical communications system ) that the "difference" between "earth" as in the CPC and earth as in true ground is apparantly not fully understood. I accept that there will be confusion as at one time the CPC was earth ( true ground ) then it became a signal wire to operate a voltage operated breaker if there was any earth fault. But this rapidly went out of fashion when it was pointed out that accidently connecting the CPC ( signal wire ) to true ground immmediately reduced the safety by bypassing the coil in the breaker. Then we got the PME system where "earth" is the neutral and this can be forced ( by network un-balance or faults ) to be several (or even many volts from true ground. Broken incoming neutral and the CPC can be at 230 volts above true ground. Touch an equi-potentially bonded outside water tap when the CPC is in that state and there is the possiblily of a fatal shock. Why no device to detect that the CPC is above ground voltage. OH DEAR full circle back to voltage operate breakers.

Confusing to say the least and as a compromise maybe not the best.
 
Sponsored Links
Indirect contact - Contact of persons or livestock with exposed-conductive-parts which have become live under fault conditions.
Which is incorrect!
This definition should have been updated to read something like;

It has been updated. Direct contact / indirect contact do not exist, as those definitions were deleted from BS7671 over three years ago.

Why do you continually base your arguments on regulations which are obsolete?
If you want any kind of sensible dialogue with anyone, please buy the current edition of BS7671 and read it.
 
I believe that earlier on in this thread I mentioned that the definition of 'indirect contact' had mistakenly been taken straight from the 15th Edition without being updated, it read;
Indirect contact - Contact of persons or livestock with exposed-conductive-parts which have become live under fault conditions.
No it doesn't.

It reads

Indirect contact Deleted by BS 7671:2008 (See Fault protection)

But under Fault protection it defines Indirect contact as "Contact of persons or livestock with exposed-conductive-parts which have become live under fault conditions."


Which is incorrect!
This definition should have been updated to read something like;
Indirect contact - Contact of persons or livestock with earthed conductive parts (in the case of earth leakage current).
And;
Indirect contact under fault conditions - Contact of persons or livestock with earthed conductive parts (in the case of earth fault current).
Are we getting somewhere now?

Is it that you have written a book using a different set of definitions to BS 7671, and therefore you are declaring BS 7671 wrong and saying that it should be changed to match your book?
 
Do you believe this is the same D. Cockburn who wrote the book BAS?
I'm still of the opinion that it is another forum member on a wind up mission.
 
Sponsored Links
And poor old Bernard is still feeding him.....
Yes he is. I feel sorry for both of them.

Please do not feel sorry for me. I am not feeding him. I am seeking some down to earth explanations.

Why does the wording of regulations create a confusing difference between bonding and earthing without providing a clear explanation of the differences in terms used. It is OK for cable installers to use different names and words for the two different uses of green / yellow cable as they can follow the rules.

But many people wonder how two bits of green / yellow cable that are connected by clamps to the same length of copper piping MUST by regulations be given different names even though it is clear to see that electrically they are the same circuit.
 
Please do not feel sorry for me. I am not feeding him. I am seeking some down to earth explanations.

Why does the wording of regulations create a confusing difference between bonding and earthing without providing a clear explanation of the differences in terms used. It is OK for cable installers to use different names and words for the two different uses of green / yellow cable as they can follow the rules.

But many people wonder how two bits of green / yellow cable that are connected by clamps to the same length of copper piping MUST by regulations be given different names even though it is clear to see that electrically they are the same circuit.

Bernard, you are an intelligent man. Please don't tell us that you consider earthing and bonding to be the same thing....
 
And poor old Bernard is still feeding him.....
Yes he is. I feel sorry for both of them.

Please do not feel sorry for me. I am not feeding him. I am seeking some down to earth explanations.
Then you are doing yourself no favours by engaging in any kind of discourse with Diddy David.

If he is the author of the work of fantasy that kicked off this thread he is a deluded fool. If he isn't then he is a troll who is winding you up.

Either way, your credibility is up the spout for entertaining him, whatever his own perverse motives.
 
Hi All,
We have four basic situations:
Touching an energised circuit conductor.
Touching an un-earthed conductor that has itself come into contact with an energised circuit conductor.
Touching an earthed conductor whilst there is earth leakage current passing through the earthing system.
Touching an earthed conductor whilst there is earth fault current passing through the earthing system.

What would you have me call them?
 

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
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top