A bit of bondage!

[ebee]

As far as I am aware he has not claimed IET approval . yet.

You'd have to go back to the IET forum post some months ago where he appeared to make that very claim.

I stand corrected then (I did say as far as I am aware)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As far as I am aware he has not claimed IET approval . yet.

You'd have to go back to the IET forum post some months ago where he appeared to make that very claim.

Got a link?

To be fair though I have no doubt that the david911cockburn on here is not the real author of these ' masterpieces'.

Ask Ban. I believe he has had some direct correspondence.

I've had emails from the author to the email address for me I publish on this forum, so clearly the author has been reading this site.

If he has it would be strange for him not to have protested to Admin if the david911cockburn here was not him.

 

[holmslaw]

A quote on the IET forum

"For some more accurate information maybe read Viz, im sure Terry
F$%kwit knows more about earthing and bonding than Cockburn"

 

[ebee]

I suppose that it could be possible that David Cockburn is the only one of us who is "in step", the rest of us are "out of step" including the IET

 

[Spark123]

Was it from the same email address as appears at the bottom of the page here BAS?
http://illustrationexplains.com/

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes.

 

[david911cockburn]

Hi All,

Sorry it has taken so long to come back, I'm afraid that users of the IET forum are quite difficult to talk to.
It would appear that a Mr. OMS, amoungst others, on the IET forum have mixed up the need for supplementary equipotential bonding with the need for "local" supplementary equipotential bonding!
In other words where Chapter 41 of the 16th Edition tells you that failure to achieve the loop impedance figures contained within, will result in a need for "local" supplementary equipotential bonding (or also joining together earthed conductors and cpc's at their extemities), he/they have mistakenly taken 413-02-04 to mean that achieving the loop impedance figures within will mean that there is no need for any supplementary bonding at all. The result of which is unfortunately a 'touch voltage' of 230v during a fault of negligable impedance between a line circuit conductor and an un-earthed conductor, which is extremely dangerous!

Dave.

 

[RF Lighting]

No one cares.

You are still quoting from a document that is now almost 4 years out of date.

Until you start using the up to date regulations there is NO POINT even bothering to enter in to any form of discussion with you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There'd be no point even then.

The man is incompetent beyond belief and barking mad.

 

[sparkticus]

david911cockburn, in my opinion your book makes homeopathy look like science.

As for your book I'm afraid that I would call it pseudoscience.

May I ask exactly what specific qualifications and what specific experience you have in electrical engineering?

 

[Spark123]

22 pages, maybe Mr Cockburn can write a book on HIEarthing and see how many pages that goes to

 

[securespark]

Box of frogs.

 

[flameport]

It would appear that a Mr. OMS, amoungst others, on the IET forum have mixed up the need for supplementary equipotential bonding with the need for "local" supplementary equipotential bonding

No. What actually happened there is that OMS and others initially provided complete and accurate answers to your questions. You then twisted these around and extended the discussion to over 300 comments by inserting irrelevant and spurious statements in an attempt to justify your personal crusade against BS7671.

In the end, you were told you exactly what you didn't want to hear, and you predictably ignored all of it.

It's all here:
http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=40836
Nothing more can be said, and no one can be bothered to reply to you any more, since it doesn't get anywhere.

 

[sparkticus]

You then twisted these around and extended the discussion to over 300 comments by inserting irrelevant and spurious statements in an attempt to justify your personal crusade against BS7671.

Flameport, I would not even give him such credence as a crusade against BS7671. It appears to me to be nothing more than a personal crusade of personal promotion based on nothing tangible at all. He has simply convoluted a reasonably straight forward subject. I rarely get so rude but his personal opinions on anything electrical are really not worth reading.

 

[stillp]

How can this dangerous and deluded fool have a crusade against BS 7671 when he doesn't even bother to own a copy of the current (green) or even the previous (red) edition?